[Dmsp] xml vs. binary encoding

"Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678" <Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com> Mon, 27 March 2006 21:21 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNz9Q-0002J2-G5; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:21:24 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNz9P-0002Ih-JC for dmsp@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:21:23 -0500
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FNz9P-00045Z-CQ for dmsp@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:21:23 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1143492881!11035969!1
X-StarScan-Version:; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 20523 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2006 20:54:42 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) ( by server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2006 20:54:42 -0000
Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com []) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motgate7) with ESMTP id k2RLAece009756 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:10:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from de01exm69.ds.mot.com (de01exm69.am.mot.com []) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k2RLAUFY021855 for <dmsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:10:30 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:54:40 -0500
Message-ID: <6806C66D71ED9241BAECC0478173B71F6DEC31@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
Thread-Topic: xml vs. binary encoding
thread-index: AcZR4KrommcKrIFuRzu9VO6lKAJuJA==
From: "Engelsma Jonathan-QA2678" <Jonathan.Engelsma@motorola.com>
To: <dmsp@ietf.org>
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAQ=
X-White-List-Member: TRUE
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Subject: [Dmsp] xml vs. binary encoding
X-BeenThere: dmsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Multimodal Synchronization Protocol <dmsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dmsp>
List-Post: <mailto:dmsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dmsp-bounces@ietf.org


I wanted to share a few additional comments/observations on the
discussion regarding XML vs. binary DMSP message encodings.

XML is typically easier to work with, but once again things are a little
different from the terminal perspective, particularly if you are working
with J2ME.  Handsets that implement MIDP 2.0 are not required to provide
XML processing capabilities (defined in the optional JSR 172). J2ME
Applications running on handsets without JSR 172 would have to provide
their own XML parser, which translates into larger midlets and more
latency.  At the same time reading/writing the binary messages defined
by DMSP is really straight-forward.  I'd post some code examples, but
you'd get bored real quick.  :-)

Chris and I did at one point discuss whether the normative text should
assume the XML encoding or the binary, but as Chris already mentioned,
our implementation experience was mostly with the latter, so that's what
we went with.  If the group's concensus is that referencing the XML
encoding in the normative text and moving the binary encoding to an
appendix would make the specification more readable and less
intimidating to implementors (and arguably more "future proof"), I don't
think I'd protest too loudly.  I'm fairly confident that implementors
trying to obtain snappy responses on a mid-tier handset/2.5G network
will go with the most compact encoding either way. 


Dmsp mailing list