[standards-jig] Thoughs about DSPS/JOBS

Hal Rottenberg hal at nx2k.com
Thu Nov 28 01:53:26 UTC 2002


Matthew and Justin,

While perusing the archives I saw a discussion about JOBS vs DTCP that
looked interesting and thought I might comment.

<quote author="matthew">
On the subject of Corporate Users:  Like it or not, corporations make
the world go round.  They drive development of technology much more than
the home-consumer level.

The JSF has a responsibility to provide a set of standards that make
technical sense to the most number of entities, which includes both of
the above groups.  DTCP does not even attempt to work for the corporate
use-cases, and works "most of the time" (and much, much less over time)
for the second group.  JOBS solves the problem for both.
</quote>

It seems to me that JOBS, while being arguably more compatible to a
greater number of configurations, is not necessarily the best choice for
the greatest _number_of_users_.  Let me explain.

The both of you have overlooked a third case where messages and OOB data
would be transferred.  That third case is point-to-point connections, on
the same IP network, _behind_ the corporate firewall or NAT router.  In
case you do not think this is a significant case, at the Fortune 50
company I work for, we have just shy of 10,000 users on our Jabber
server.

Sending email attachments is extremely popular at work.  Drives the
Exchange admins crazy I bet.  If a small subset of our Jabber users were
to drop email attachments for Jabber file xfer, I can see it squashing
our Jabber server pretty quickly.  As you say, "Any Jabber server could
have several set up for discovery (and not even on
their own resources), possibly even load-balanced (which looks like one,
humoungous server).".  We would definitely have to do this.  It would
cost a lot of money in additional server hardware and labor.

Alternatively, users could DTCP to each other.  No muss, no fuss, more
evenly distributed load on the networks, no additional central costs.

Then to address the home users with routers--I venture to say that most
of them know how to forward a port *.  Regardless, client negotiation
and discovery will figure out the best way. 

(* Just had a thought--Universal Plug & Play Gateway Extensions might be
able to fill in for the rest who do not know how to forward a port...)

I for one can definitely see a need for both protocols.

-hal
email: hal at nx2k.com
JID: halr9000 at theoretic.com
AIM: halr9000
"Insert clever signature here."




More information about the Standards mailing list