[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Server to Server communication over STANAG 50666 ARQ

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Aug 26 15:58:45 UTC 2015


Folks,

I've avoided voting on this because I want to seek some community input on
it. Specifically, we (the XMP{P Standards Foundation) claim to be an Open
Standards organization, and it's not clear if this submission qualifies
because it has a dependency on STANAG 5066, which is not publicly available.

STANAG 5066 is a physical layer protocol providing services roughly akin to
IPX/SPX and V.90 combined. It's in use both in the Military world (it's a
NATO specification) and also by commercial HF radio modems in use by
amateur radio operators ("hams") worldwide.

Many STANAG documents are available publicly in the NATO Standards
Organisation's online document library, here:
http://nso.nato.int/nso/nsdd/listpromulg.html - but STANAG 5066 is missing
from this list.

I'd like to make it clear that otherwise, I'm thoroughly in favour of this.

Some parallel cases, which people may decide form a precedent (or may
decide are completely different).


1) RTMP as a Jingle transport.

RTMP is (or was) a multimedia realtime transport protocol developed by
Adobe, and in use in the Flash Player. The Council rejected a submission to
allow its use as a Jingle transport, on the basis that it was a closed
standard.

The minutes say:

"Council consensus that it is inappropriate to publish this proposal
given the proprietary nature of the RTMP technology on which this
specification depends."

STANAG 5066, although a STANdardization AGreement, is not publicly
available, and therefore certainly doesn't form an "open standard".

2) SDN.801c in XEP-0258

As a counter-example of sorts, implementing XEP-0258 in any useful form in
a server requires the use of the document SDN.801c, which (similar to
STANAG 5066) is an unclassified document which is not publicly available.

However, XEP-0258 was, of course, published as a XEP - and indeed it's
relatively simple to implement in a client, and its possible to implement a
server which uses some other labelling model; arguably therefore SDN.801c
is not a hard dependency in the same way.


I could go either way on this; though my ideal outcome would be that STANAG
5066 gets put in the NATO public STANAG library alongside the others.

Opinions welcome.

Dave.

On 24 August 2015 at 23:32, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org> wrote:

> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>
> Title: Server to Server communication over STANAG 50666 ARQ
>
> Abstract:
>   This specification defines operation over XMPP over the NATO STANAG 5066
> data link service for point to point links (ARQ).   This enables optimized
> XMPP performance over HF Radio (which STANAG 5066 was designed for) and
> over other data links using STANAG 5066.
>
>
>
> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/s2s-over-s5066.html
>
> The XMPP Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
> proposal as an official XEP.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150826/8b1ce75c/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list