[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. 

Justin: 
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