[standards-jig] RFC transport layer notes

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 19 19:22:04 UTC 2002


On 2/19/02 10:40 AM, "Mike Lin" <mikelin at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> By extension, however, this may give us a somewhat reasonable definition
> of what our transport layer is, as something separate from our XML
> stream layer: just a per-session FIFO byte stream. We happen to
> implement that with TCP connections.

Agreed.  In fact, we rely on a bi-directional, ordered, reliable transport
layer.  There is currently nothing in Jabber to handle unidirectional
streams (pagers), explicit ordering of packets (UDP), or error detection and
recovery (raw serial communications).

> I believe that only if/when we start introducing JEP-0017 or BEEP for
> framing, then our transport layer can rightly be defined as something
> more substantative than that.

Yup.  Does this mean a change to the JEP?  I think the latest RFC explicitly
ties Jabber to TCP so this shouldn't be an issue there.

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




More information about the Standards mailing list