[Standards-JIG] new top level tag?

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Wed Mar 10 17:54:22 UTC 2004

On Mar 10, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:

>>>> 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 [...]
>>> True, but I think you would have a very hard time justifying the 
>>> effort
>>> required to support this when we already have IQ, [...]
>> The only reason that would justify the new tag is if the routing and
>> processing rules are significantly different from IQ. If they are, 
>> then
>> a new tag is justified and fairly compelling.
>> If the routing rules are the same as, or similar to, IQ, then it's not
>> worth looking at.
> And even if the routing/processing rules are not completely the same it
> would still have to be proven that they could not be modified to fit 
> in with
> IQ.
> Richard

Very true, as proof specs such as AMP, for messages, and Packet 
Headers, in general, are trying to look at alternate routing cases 
within the confines of the existing protocol elements.  The chance of 
getting a new top level element is probably infinitely small.


More information about the Standards mailing list