[standards-jig] UPDATED: IBB (JEP-0047)

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Wed Mar 26 00:06:06 UTC 2003

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote on 26-3-2003 0:53:20:
>On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:08:04PM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
>> > Also, in the examples I don't see any IQ type="result" packets 
>> > send out any longer when a data-packet is received (I believe 
>> > there used to be in your last proposal for IBB). Is this done on 
>> > purpose? (bandwidth concerns?) Or should we still send them? (in 
>> > wich case it should be in the example to be clear). If we wouldn't 
>> > send them, isn't that a bit against the nature of IQ?
>> According to temas, removing the 'acks' would speed up the data 
>> exchange.  This is why a sequence number was added.  If we were 
>> acking everything, then we wouldn't need such a counter.
>XMPP Core (section 7.5.1) *requires* the ack:
>      An entity that receives an IQ request of type 'get' or 'set' 
>      MUST reply with an IQ response of type 'result' or 'error' 
>      (which response SHOULD preserve the 'id' attribute of the 
>      request).

Exactly my concern.
That doesn't mean you have to *wait* for it though before sending the 
next packet. Still I think if it is send it should be in the examples 
too. Though if you do *choose* to wait for the acks I think it will 
help you staying within your karma limits, as well as the receivers(!) 
karma limits. 

Switching the counter size to 32bit, and changing newseq to lastseq 
sounds good to me. 

Tijl Houtbeckers
Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands

More information about the Standards mailing list