[Standards-JIG] new top level tag?

Ulrich Staudinger us at die-horde.de
Wed Mar 10 09:37:06 UTC 2004


Richard Dobson wrote:

>>>I love it.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>i like it too, especially the RTP tag. However, it is really just a
>>first proposal.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>XMPP Core states:
>>>"Three kinds of XML stanza are defined for the 'jabber:client' and
>>>'jabber:server' namespaces: <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>." We
>>>might be better off defining a new namespace (ala, SASL, TLS, Dialback),
>>>and then putting the rtp stuff in there.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The new namespaces solves our divergence with the main XMPP specs.
>>Defining a new namespace seems like a good idea.
>>    
>>
>
>It doesnt seem to solve anything at all (infact it completely breaks it), if
>its not valid in the 'jabber:server' and 'jabber:client' namespaces it wont
>be passed in between servers using s2s, which kind of defeats the object of
>the exercise, also all jabber servers will need to be specifically coded to
>support this for it to pass inbetween the clients which seems a bit silly
>since this protocol is only really relevant for the end points (the clients
>or reflection servers) and is not relevant for the jabber server itself to
>examine. This might be "nice" as a new top level element but the effort that
>is required to support it is a complete waste since we already have iq which
>can be used perfectly adequately.
>  
>
You definitely have a point here. Servers need to support the routing of 
this new tag and IQ tags can deliver this specific content as well 
without changing anything to the existing protocol structure.
But, if a new tag makes it into a JEP and then into the protocol specs 
(which seems unlikely) every server needs to support it somehow, just to 
be compliant.

Ulrich




More information about the Standards mailing list