[standards-jig] jep 65 - bytestream type

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Thu Jul 24 17:28:57 UTC 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ulrich,

On Thursday, Jul 24, 2003, at 10:29 America/Denver, Ulrich B. 
Staudinger wrote:

> I understand the difference between 65 and 96 and 95.and i think i 
> understand the interaction.
> But i think the interaction is by far too complicated for plain 
> bytestreams with no extra information (i.e. meta tags, filesize, 
> filename).

If you just want a plain bytestream then just use 65 -- it includes no 
meta-data information by default! What a bonus!

I do see where you're coming from, but building stream initiation (SI) 
into bytestreams is something we explicitly avoided, since people can 
use bytestreams for any number of stream types. Without using 95, how 
would you client know when a bytestream request comes in what type of 
stream it is, the contents, etc (i.e. meta-data). Additionally, if 
someone sent requests for multiple bytestreams to you, how would you 
differentiate them?

The other reason that 65 is separate from 95 is that there are other 
methods of exchanging streams (such as jabber:iq:oob), and we wanted a 
single, reusable layer for negotiating any type of streams. It's just 
good, modular protocol design.

Diz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE/IBdZYNE3chVHHsMRArUGAKCxLXiVHccM3/1l2E3wfwCJXt5eNgCg9S/a
occNb2UUbqUJCGlxuHwU1lE=
=e92G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list