[standards-jig] IBB: The options
richard at dobson-i.net
Thu Apr 10 13:41:24 UTC 2003
> Obviously, I don't agree that the message delivery fix MUST be done
> before IBB is fixed -- this isn't a problem of mutual exclusivity. The
> Right Thing (tm) to do is proceed with IBB using <message> and start a
> new JEP in parallel to address <message> problems. Creating multiple
> JEPs (one w/ and one w/o IQs) creates even MORE backwards
> compatibility issues.
Well im sorry but I dont see how IBB can proceed to draft without the
delivery fix having been standardised and finalised beforehand.
> With all due respect, I would reiterate that this isn't just about the
> "name" of the stanza/packet. There IS a problem with <message> -- we
> can't use it as it was originally meant to be used. This means there is
> a bug in the protocol that should be fixed. Making the right choices
> for protocol clarity and uniformity is a critical part of the JSF's
> function. If we are serious about wanting to build a long-lived
> protocol we MUST be concerned with making changes that match the
> original intent and goals of the protocol.
Well im sorry but with all due respect, I still dont logically see the need
for using message, IQ just seems a much simpler more logical and more
elegant solution, and doesn't need all the hacking of message with lots of
extensions which would not be required with IQ.
Im happy to be convinced otherwise but that hasnt happened so far as using
philosophical reasons over technical reasons seems silly to me, but oh
More information about the Standards