[Standards-JIG] new top level tag?

Chris Mullins cmullins at winfessor.com
Wed Mar 10 18:06:09 UTC 2004

Richard Dobson [mailto:richard at dobson-i.net] Wrote:
[ new top level tag ]

>> 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.

>From a design perspective, the steps would be:
1) Understand requirements for RTP as a protocol
2) Understand existing protocol rules, and limitations
3) Determine if RTP can fit into an existing mechanism
4) If possible, design into existing mechanism else design new

Without any understanding of the requirements RTP may have, there is no
way to determine if a new top level stanza is justified or not. 

This does expose a large drawback to the XMPP document that should be
changed in future revisions - soften the "ONLY IQ / PRESENCE / MESSAGE"
verbiage so that it becomes more extensible without violating the entire
thing. There are many, many problem domains that will not map onto the
existing protocol in any meaningful way. That is a whole new discussion


More information about the Standards mailing list