[standards-jig] IBB: The options

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Apr 10 08:58:26 UTC 2003


Ok now here is a summary of the options I think we now have.

1) Stop work on IBB and start work on a new JEP for fix message delivery
problems, this MUST be done before IBB can proceed any further along the
message data transmission path, and MUST be finished first. Also must make
x:events standards track if IBB is going to rely on it for acks.

2) Just use IQ.

The requirements/problems from my point of view:
1) guaranteed delivery of all packets (IQ can do this as it is, message
cannot without extensions)
2) should not be stored offline, and even if it does not for long (IQ does
not get stored offline)
3) packets must not end up going to another resource (IQ does this, message
cannot do this without extension, also for the people who think storing
offline is good this one problem stops it from working reliably since
packets may well not end up in offline storage if you go offline, also I see
continued file transfers as questionable functionality anyway, what if you
log in on a different machine? you will end up getting potensially megabytes
of file transfer messages that are useless to you, and all this while you
will not be getting anything else through which if there are megabytes of
messages waiting could be quite a while, now I know this could be fixed by
using a pop style protocol but we dont have one as of yet also that would be
yet another requirement before IBB can proceed)

Now I would vote for option 2 since it seems to match the requirements much
more than message does, this is something which you should always do in
projects before you go too far, a requirements analysis, and according to a
requirements analysis IQ seems to fit the bill, also the discussion I have
seen about the meaning of the word message is not really relevant to this in
my eyes since all you should really be doing is an analysis of the
capabilities of the packets and see which fits the bill not what the word
literally means what if the name of the message packet was chat or something
else silly?? would you still want to analyse the meaning of the word over
what its capabilities are??.

Richard





More information about the Standards mailing list