[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.

Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534 Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Fri Jun 25 21:06:43 UTC 2004


I believe JBI is using Sun's Java Messaging Service PubSub API which isn't proprietary and is more capable and less ambiguous ;) than XMPP. But I agree, using XMPP would be a good idea. This is one of the reasoning why I've been pushing for the Jabber community to tighten the specifiction. Ambiguity and high optionality in specifications make them difficult to use in projects like JBI or the work we are doing. 

XMPP support is DOD is actually going quite well. There are about a dozen projects that I'm aware of using it. The biggest problem we are having at the moment is the bandwidth utilization of XMPP is higher than IRC so we are looking at ways to compress XMPP packets.

Other problems include lack of  MUC & PubSub support in an open source Java Jabber server (like openIM), lack of a complete PubSub implementation (in C) for jabberd2, lack of pubsub support in commercial jabber servers (I think Jabber Inc's XCP product has the only commercial implementation).

boyd




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bobwyman at pubsub.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:55 PM
> To: 'Jabber protocol discussion list'
> Cc: Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534
> Subject: RE: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.
> 
> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> > trying to drum up support for XMPP in DOD.
> 	If you want DOD to support XMPP, I think you're going 
> to have to describe how XMPP fits into the Global Information 
> Grid (GIG) see:
> (http://ges.dod.mil/).
> 	Also, you should take a look at a number of the 
> "competing" pubsub protocols and systems in DOD today. For 
> instance, I sent info on the Air Force's JBI program to the 
> list a few days ago. Currently, JBI relies on the CAPI[2] 
> interface which is completely Java-centric and assumes the 
> capabilities of a Java stack. One useful step would be to get 
> Air Force to go to the effort of mapping CAPI onto JEP-0060 
> as a transport protocol. It is somewhat disgraceful that Air 
> Force would be putting so much effort into defining their 
> stuff on a proprietary (SUN-defined) interface when open 
> source, openly defined, tools that meet all COTS requirements 
> are available.
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> [1] http://www.rl.af.mil/programs/jbi/default.cfm
> [2] http://www.infospherics.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list