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

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Wed Nov 27 01:28:05 UTC 2002

On Tuesday 26 November 2002 10:36 am, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> 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.

It provides context between a high-level protocol (say, file transfer) and a 
stream transport.  The negotiation step is actually optional.  If negotiation 
is needed, it is done independent of the high-level protocol.

Read JEP-0052 (File Transfer), or http://www.affinix.com/~justin/jidlink.html 
to see how easy it is to write a protocol on top of Jidlink.

Temas is not convinced, and so he is drafting a new File Transfer spec that 
does not rely on Jidlink:


Instead, the negotiation is put inside of the FT protocol.  IMO, this is both 
good and bad.  Good, because it eliminates the need for Jidlink.  Bad, 
because his spec is more complicated than 52.  And now, if a new protocol 
comes along (like my portfw example at that URL), it must either use Jidlink 
anyway or integrate its own negotiation (redundant).

Of course, there are other differences.  Temas' new spec also allows the use 
of iq:oob for backwards compatibility, something JEP-0052 simply throws out 
the window.

> 2) JEP-0041 references an outdated version of JEP-0020.

Hrm, I was not aware that JEP-0020 was updated.  I'm sure this is easy to 
adapt to.

> 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.

This is intentional.  All stream transports (JEPs 42,46,47) are very generic, 
a trend started by JEP-0037.

> Is anybody currently using this JEP? Does anybody seem a further need
> for it?

Currently it is used by Tkabber and IMcom.  I was also planning on 
implementing it ...

However, as Temas is working on a new spec, this is all very much "up in the 


More information about the Standards mailing list