[standards-jig] IBB Again

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Fri May 2 22:20:30 UTC 2003

Hi all,

We never finished the IBB discussion, and I'd like to get this thing resolved 
already.  The sooner we get this darn thing out of the way, the sooner we can 
finish JEP-0052.  The main issue is iq vs message.

To use message properly, we need JEP-0079 (Message Delivery Semantics) to be 
approved and for server implementations to use it.  Thus, to use message 
means to lose compatibility with existing servers.  Reliability is also a 
requirement of IBB, and this can be achieved using delivery notifications 
from the approved JEP-0022 (Message Events).  This has the nice advantage 
that 'ack'ing can be done selectively.

Now for my opinion:

IBB is supposed to be as reliable as S5B, which is based on TCP.  IBB is not 
intended to behave like RTP, so I don't consider the availability of 
selective 'ack'ing to mean anything (unless we want to change the IBB 
requirements).  That considered, I think since using -79 and -22 together 
effectively gives you iq, both stanza solutions are identical.  If both 
stanzas can do the same job, then I choose the one that will work over 
existing servers: iq.

I guess these are the questions:

1) Do we want IBB to have the ability to be unreliable?  If yes, then we have 
no choice but to use message and -79.  If no, then:
2) Do we want to IBB to operate over existing servers?  If yes, then we use 
iq.  If no, then we use message and -79.

Let's answer these questions so we can get a resolution already!


More information about the Standards mailing list