stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Sep 28 22:17:33 UTC 2006
Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Hi Chris!
> Chris Mullins schrieb:
>> One we get richer stream types (binary channels, etc) having a TTL like
>> this might be very nice. This would let me open a binary stream so some
>> resource, and have automatically closed after a preconfigured period of
>> time. Also, we could have stream-within-stream features that had defined
>> TTL's. We could also add in Karma type settings to this, so that after a
>> certain byte count, or a certain sustained bytes/per second value the
>> stream is terminated.
> That sounds a bit like the Jabber over BEEP binding Iain Shigeoka
> proposed in 2002
> Well the proposal sounded a bit to radical for me in 2002 and I did not
> like the idea of Jabber switching from TCP to BEEP as it would have ment
> a completely incompatible change of the Jabber protocols. (I feared this
> especially because Iain called that JabberNG.)
> But I have to admit, that I never forgot the idea of Iain, and it got
> some attraction on me. Especially as the Jabber/XMPP protocols have
> advanced, and we already have different bindings of Jabber and ways to
> support them in parallel (JEP-0124, JEP-0156).
Interestingly, in the early days of IM work at the IETF, the author of
BEEP proposed something called APEX (Iain mentioned it in that message
from 2002) and there was interest in that, but late on he said that
everyone should use XMPP instead. :-) I haven't looked at what XMPP over
BEEP would really entail, but as you say it could be defined as an
alternate transport for XMPP -- we'd have XMPP over TCP, XMPP over HTTP,
XMPP over BEEP, maybe even XMPP over UDP someday (or reliable UDP?).
But right now I'm busy enough working on XMPP over TCP. :-)
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards