[standards-jig] IBB: Making it all "go"

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Thu Apr 10 05:07:27 UTC 2003


Dave Smith <dizzyd at jabber.org> wrote on 10-4-2003 6:52:34:
>
>This is a good point. However, first consider that IBB is unlikely to 
>actually encounter these problems of "rollover routing" and 
>unintentional off-lining in the wild -- at least in the first six 
>months. Even if every major client quickly adopts IBB, that doesn't 
>mean people will immediately use it for every transfer. Adoption by 
>JSF does not immediate adoption make -- look at x:data. It's a great 
>protocol, but there is still a significant portion of clients out 
>there that don't support it.

I agree with Dave that <message> is currently not up to the task of IBB.
 And that with the proper fixes concerning delivery sematics (both 
 server *and* client if you ask me) it could very well be good for IBB. 
 Who else thinks such a solution should belong in XMPP Core? 

However, considering that would problably take a while, I *do* think 
there is a need for IBB in the time inbetween, using what we have now 
today: <iq/>. If not a standards track JEP then an informational one. I 
don't think the situation is comparable with x:data because: - a 
decently standardized way of transfering files to each other is 
something both users and client authors have been waiting for quite a 
while now - x:data mostly concerns server-client applications, wich 
gives you the chicken & egg situation (no applications -> no client, no 
client -> no applications). Generally speaking client-client 
applications are adapted quicker. - new delivery sematics will not only 
take a while to be standerdized, it will be even longer before every 
populair server will support it. - I need IBB for my next project ;) 

Thoughts on this anyone?

-- 
Tijl Houtbeckers
Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands




More information about the Standards mailing list