[standards-jig] Thoughts on JEP-0041 (Jidlink)

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Wed Nov 27 01:21:07 UTC 2002

Just as a note, the new filexfer doesn't use jidlink at all.  For a
sneak peak of it take a look at:


That's pretty much what we'll end up going with, so I guess comments are
kind of welcome now ;-)


On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:36:00AM -0700, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> After several months of relative silence from my in the JSF, I've
> decided to come out swinging. Really, I was just trying to catch up on
> what's been going on in my virtual absence (been buried under work --
> not really absent).
> While pouring over JEPs, I came across JEP-0041 and was struck by a
> distinct impression that this JEP adds little value.
> 1) What does this protocol give us that can't be accomplished by feature
> negotiation.
> 2) JEP-0041 references an outdated version of JEP-0020.
> 3) JEP-0041 defines an explicit relationship between itself and
> JEP-0046, but JEP-0046 doesn't mention JEP-0041 at all.
> 4) JEP-0041 defines an explicit relationship between itself and
> JEP-0047, but JEP-0047 doesn't mention JEP-0041 at all.
> Is anybody currently using this JEP? Does anybody seem a further need
> for it? If not, can we have it removed from the standards track? It must
> overwhelm the council to have to so many JEPs in this continual state of
> limbo, and reflects poorly on the JSF's ability to quickly advance the
> technology of the protocol.
> Cheers,
> bs.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20021126/48e0ca27/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list