[standards-jig] JEP-0047 (IBB) Updated

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Mon Apr 7 20:30:14 UTC 2003


On Monday, Apr 7, 2003, at 12:04 America/Denver, Peter Millard wrote:

> <council_hat>
> For the record, I concur with temas' assessment of the various issues 
> with this
> JEP.
>
> 1) Need to find a better method for "stamping" instead of the seq, 
> prev-seq
> mess.

My recommendation would be to just drop the "prevseq" attribute and put 
a hard limit on the # of packets that may be sent over a single stream. 
4 _billion_ packets should be plenty for any streams in this manner. 
Arguably, if a stream required more than that number of packets it 
shouldn't be done over a non-direct transport like this. Enforcing a 
hard limit neatly cleans up the whole problem and doesn't force us to 
resort to timestamps -- which I am vehemently against.

> 2) Use <message> elements perhaps with proper expiration headers 
> instead of
> using <iq>'s. We get lots of delivery semantics from jabber itself. 
> Lets use
> them :) We don't need the overhead of ack'ing every message. (We don't 
> need to
> re-invent TCP here).

Agreed. This is a perfect use for the <message> packet. Stream control 
can still be done via IQs, if necessary.

The only other outstanding issue that I see (assuming the first two 
problems are fixed), is how a stream cleans up in error conditions. For 
instance, if a packet is dropped, I'd recommend that we permit the 
recipient to just forcibly close the stream -- after all ensuring 
guaranteed delivery is HARD, and beyond the scope of this JEP.

I like the gist of this JEP -- some simple modifications will make it 
suitable for use and implementation.

Diz




More information about the Standards mailing list