[standards-jig] jep 65 - bytestream type

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Thu Jul 24 15:16:36 UTC 2003


Could you describe how 95 does not solve this problem? 

--temas


On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 04:09, Ulrich B. Staudinger wrote:
> Yes, i know 65 has settled already. but it makes no sense for me to 
> negotiate twice if everything can be done in a single negotiation 
> session. every negotiation session increases chances of error occurance. 
> enhancing 65 to include a stream type as a subspace/subnode would really 
> help a lot, not only for possible session merging which can come at a 
> later point. it would allow stream blocking, too. for example, some 
> proxys just allow gsm traffic (which has very low bandwidth req) while 
> other proxys allow all sorts of bytestreams (the topnode bytestream). 
> i.e. /bytestream, /bytestream/gsm, /bytestream/h323, /bytestream/tradedata.
> 
> i really see sense in adding a subspace into the bytestream domain and 
> it would not break up existing implementations.
> 
> 
> ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Karneges wrote:
> 
> >JEP-65 is intended to be generic like TCP.  What you do with it is your own 
> >business.  For instance, file transfer JEPs have been written to use JEP-65 
> >as a basis.  However, this does not require modification to JEP-65, in much 
> >the same way we did not have to modify TCP to create Jabber.
> >
> >I suggest you look into JEP-95.
> >
> >-Justin
> >
> >On Thursday 24 July 2003 12:06 am, Ulrich B. Staudinger wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>reading over jep65 again i miss a feature:
> >>i wonder if it makes sense to define the bytestream type?
> >>GT2.7 i uses GSM for voice streaming. But, because gt does support a
> >>specific bytestream (type gsm) i respond
> >>
> >><iq
> >>    type='result'
> >>    from='target at host2/bar'
> >>    to='initiator at host1/foo'
> >>    id='hello'>
> >>  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'>
> >>    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/bytestreams/gsm'/>
> >>  </query>
> >></iq>
> >>
> >>to an iq query.
> >>Especially plain bytestreams with no start and no end don't need a very
> >>complicative negotiation session before setting up the bytestream.
> >>Either a client supports gsm or not. same goes with mp3 streams.
> >>
> >>Just a thought.
> >>
> >>ulrich
> >>    
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Standards-JIG mailing list
> >Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list