[standards-jig] IBB Again
crabbkw at nafai.dyndns.org
Sat May 3 03:38:11 UTC 2003
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:20:30PM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
> 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.
1) we should have the ability to ACK at specified intervals and not
each packet; unreliable all together would be nice, but 'reliable' is
a false notion here as current IQ implementations won't guarantee the
packet is delivered.
2) It would be nice, but it's not necessary. Doing the 'right' thing
in the spirit of the protocol is more important. That said, if you
need something *right now* for some application you're doing
internally, use IQ in your client and be done with it. Otherwise wait
for message semantics to go through council and be implemented and use
MsgSem and message tags for IBB.
I personally think we should wait for message semantics to be
implemented and use message tags for data transfer in the spirit of
Related to this: we need to augment message semantics (or I need to
reread it) to allow for acknowledgement of 'delivery' or
acknowledgement of 'receipt' (yes, I know lw wanted to keep it all
server side, but it should still be examined)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards