[standards-jig] JEP-0070 & JEP-0101

David 'TheRaven' Chisnall theraven at sucs.org
Fri Jun 27 00:18:29 UTC 2003


Richard,

I don't think that the problem is with your protocol, exactly, but 
rather with the way in which the JEP was introduced.  The purpose of the 
standards-jig is to review published JEPs, and to provide a forum for 
debate over the modifications required of existing JEPs.  If a new JEP 
were introduced every time someone decided that an existing JEP required 
modification, then we would end up with a huge number of experimental 
JEPs, and the situation would quickly deteriorate into anarchy.

Your JEP does seem to address a similar problem to that addressed by 
JEP-70.  To quote 'Jabber Ticket Authentication is a method of 
authenticating with HTTP servers using jabber.'  To me, this sounds a 
lot like 'Authenticating HTTP via Jabber' (the title of JEP-70).  You 
will note that the status of JEP-70 is experimental, and thus is still 
under discussion.  You state that you have valid concerns over the 
scalability of JEP-70.  If you believe that this is the case (you may 
well be right, I haven't looked very closely at the implementation 
details of JEP-70) then you should either contact the author directly or 
raise these concerns on this list.  If your concerns are valid, then the 
protocol can be modified and the JEP quickly moved to Final.  I am 
really not convinced by your assertion that JEP-101 and JEP-70 are aimed 
at entirely different markets, since there seems to be a large amount of 
overlap between the stated aims for both.

To state that there is nothing wrong with having two competing 
protocols.  I couldn't disagree more strongly with this viewpoint.  If 
there are two ways of doing the same thing in Jabber, then implementors 
have to implement both, which takes time, effort, and expense, which can 
only harm the Jabber protocol as a whole.  

You are right to say that just because Matthew wrote the first JEP does 
not make his idea better, but it does give him priority, and at the very 
least good manners would dictate that he should be contacted regarding a 
potential different implementation.  You are right when you say 'let the 
best protocol win', because we all (including Matthew, no doubt) want 
that to happen, but having multiple JEPs for, if not the same then 
similar, purposes is going to delay either of them reaching Final stage, 
and slow down Jabber adoption.  

Anyway, I agree that this seems to have been blown out of all 
proportion, and hope that now you and Matthew have had a chance to 
explain your viewpoints you can decide whether there really is a need 
for 2 JEPs.

David





More information about the Standards mailing list