[standards-jig] disco category for clients

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Sep 11 14:45:38 UTC 2003


On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +1000, Robert Norris wrote:
> > Note well that these are client types, not connection types (WAP, GPRS, 
> > etc.). Also this category does not address situations such as connecting 
> > through a gateway (e.g., SMS). Those issues need more thought.
> 
> Is a catch all "external" or "unknown" type appropriate for this?

Well, if I'm connected through an SMS gateway, who answers the disco
request? The gateway? The server? Certainly not the client.

> As a small aside, I'd still like a category/type for Jabber servers. I'm
> still using "x-service"/"x-jabber" for j2, because nothing else fits.
> The problem is that its kind of a category of one. Perhaps it would make
> more sense to have a "im" category (rather than "gateway"), and under
> that have "xmpp" for minimal XMPP-IM servers, "jabber" for Jabber
> servers, as well as "aim", "icq", "msn" and "yahoo". That could be
> ambiguous too though (since transports aren't exactly IM services). 

Yes, we need a server category, too. I would prefer not to change
existing categories if at all possible. Perhaps "server/im" for
something like jabberd2 -- there are other server types possible, as we
know ("server/calendar", "server/email", and who knows what else). The
distinction between xmpp servers and jabber servers seems less helpful
to me, since that will effectively be discovered via stream negotation
(if by xmpp server you mean a server that complies with the coming
RFCs).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php




More information about the Standards mailing list