[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: OutOfBand Stream Data

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Wed Jun 10 17:17:29 UTC 2009

After reading BEEP again...

Dirk Meyer wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Fri Apr 24 16:31:20 2009, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> Sorry I'm so far behind.  Any chance XEP-265 could have a framing
>>> parameter in the Jingle portion?  Some folks might like to just use
>>> BEEP instead of the framing mechanism specified in the XEP.
>> Or at least a BEEP-lite - we (Isode) may actually produce a spec for
>> the MPP protocol that is, more or less, that - we use it for internal
>> fast comms in our products already.
> What do you mean by BEEP-lite? I looked at BEEP again to check if we
> could use it instead of the self-made framing and found two parts I
> don't like:
> 1. Every MSG needs an RPY or NUL as answer? If you transfer a video in
>    frames (that is one reason why I wrote it), what is the answer? Or
>    does your BEEP-lite ignore the it?

That is still an issue. We could just ignore that and just use MSG in
all cases. We don't "speak" BEEP in channel 0 anyway, so it is not

> 2. I also do not like the seqno. It has a maximum value of 4GB which is
>    not enough when watching HD content.

I see, it wraps back to 0. That works for larger content but I would
prefer larger values in seqnum ... and the question remains if seqnum is
needed after all.

> Besides that, it would be ok for me to use the BEEP style
> frameming. This would move the content-type stuff away from the XML
> stream into the frameming but that is ok for me.

Reading BEEP again, I don't see where BEEP says how I can check if I
have mime headers or not. The BEEP header is only the one line and the
payload does not specify MIME in the ABNF style.

So yes, using the framing from BEEP is possible. It adds some overhead,
but I guess this is ok.


Don't play stupid with me - I'm better at it!

More information about the Standards mailing list