[standards-jig] LAST CALL: Service Discovery (JEP-0030)

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Wed Feb 26 16:11:04 UTC 2003

Nick wrote:
> I still feel "node" has not been fully addressed and is still
> ambigious. Right before example number 5 there is a statement about
> "may be associated" thats not strong enough. It should read something
> like this: "The requesting entity SHOULD NOT assume anything about the
> 'node' only that it is a unique string/attribute to address non
> addressable things. Node semantics are left up to the implementor so
> long as the requesting entity follows the previous"

I'm confused... Under example 2 is verbiage fully describing the meaning of the
node attribute.

The value of the node attribute may or may not have semantic meaning; from the
perspective of Service Discovery, a node is merely something that is associated
with a JID and for which the JID can provide information. Any semantic meaning
is provided by the protocol spoken by the JID for a particular application.

Does the last sentence not specify that the node semantics are not specified by
the disco protocol???

I think this is fully spelled out throughout the document. Please re-read and
make sure you're referencing the latest rev.


More information about the Standards mailing list