[standards-jig] NEW JEP: Inband Bytestream (JEP-0047)

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Mon Sep 30 20:09:24 UTC 2002


> Some of this I see depending on the situation though.  Take avatars for
> example.  If we utilize pubsub they are easy to propogate with a more
> clear context than inband transfer.  I guess what I'm asking for is use
> cases.  Why would I use this rather than a more refined mechanism for a
> new protocol?

Perhaps to eliminate redundancy?  To transfer an avatar image would require 
something similar to this, and I'm sure it will not be the only time anyone 
would want to transfer inband.

But then perhaps avatars may be a special case that you would want to handle 
differently, I'm not sure..

IBB is mostly intended as a fallback for when DTCP is not available.  That is, 
when you need to trade bandwidth for 100% success.  Both basically allow the 
routing of arbitrary data between two JIDs, and this is the really cool part 
IMO.  What you do with these streams is left open-ended, so they can be used 
for _anything_, be they avatars, general files, ringtones, maybe even a 
telnet session!


> I think that if you put something in the JEP about how to explicitly
> block inband transfers, and if it can be blocked by something simple on
> the server like putting a <blockinband/> in jabber.xml it won't help
> much in getting every client to use the same standard. I could be wrong
> ofcourse :)

Argh no, this should never be explicitly blocked.  I mean, I guess it could 
be, but...

You see, imagine you and a friend are chatting via Jabber, but a direct 
connection is just impossible given your circumstances.  Now you wish to send 
to your friend a 100 byte PNG.  For some reason the server has disabled IBB, 
yet you can still send your friend text messages.  That is ludicrous!  Data 
can obviously get from point A to point B, yet it has to be text.  So how to 
get your PNG across?  UUEncode?  See where this is going?

"Sorry friend, I can't send you my 100 byte PNG, but I can send you 100 bytes 
of text complaining about it.  Go figure."

If the server is going to route at all, then it should route IBB too.  It is 
no different than anything else.  This is why there is "karma".  And if a 
server implementation does not have karma, that shouldn't matter to IBB at 
all, but rather give an extra selling point to jabberd.


More information about the Standards mailing list