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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Apr 10 14:48:23 UTC 2003

I apologize, my message was a little harsh.

It seems to me that it may be a little early to consider IBB using
message, since we don't have the appropriate message semantics and
routing in place yet. So I see three possible courses of action:

1. Defer IBB until we've defined the required messaging semantics

2. Push through IBB using IQ (my sense is the Council may reject it)

3. Implement IBB with IQ in some clients and see how it works

Not everything in Jabber needs to go through the JEP process, and in
this instance it might be valuable to pursue #3 and gain some
experience with IBB before seeking ratification of the protocol.



Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:45:32PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > I hate to wreck the party, but as much as I like these latest ideas, I think 
> > we may want to go back to just plain <iq> with wait-for-result.  Sure, this 
> > has the downside of extra turn-around time per packet, but at least it is 
> > issue-free (no counters, no delivery problems).
> Justin, the consensus of the list is that using message is a superior
> technical solution. The point of this list is to reach consensus on
> protocols. If you do not like the list consensus, that is your
> prerogative. However, it is also the prerogative of another community
> member to write a competing JEP that incorporates the consensus
> solution, and of the Council to approve that JEP rather than yours. You
> have been down this path before when Dave Smith wrote JEP-0065 because
> you would not change JEP-0046. Now JEP-0065 is one vote away from
> Council approval whereas JEP-0046 will be rejected by the Council when
> it has a chance to vote on it. You are free to pursue the same strategy
> with regard to JEP-0047, but I would not advise it, because the Council 
> will advance a proposal that has community consensus, and such a
> proposal will emerge whether you author it or not. In particular, I am
> most happy to author such a proposal myself.
> Peter

More information about the Standards mailing list