[Standards] C2C TLS

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Nov 25 07:41:11 CST 2008


On Tue Nov 25 13:03:15 2008, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> I also like the fact that you don't try to use a direct connection,  
>  which has the known problems, which many just ignored in the  
> previous  discussion.

Actually, it's not that the problems are ignored, they're simply  
punted. XEP-0247 simply says "Hey, we'll negotiate something that  
works", and avoids the entire issue, by design. This is a good thing.

We're hoping that technologies like ICE-TCP and other transport layer  
solutions will be developed. This seems pretty reasonable - I'm not  
convinced by ICE-TCP itself, but we're not tied to TCP, just a  
reliably ordered stream, which makes life rather simpler. (FWIW, I  
suspect we could use ICE to setup two-way UDP communications and  
layer a reliability layer on that - in fact, I think it's been done).

What any sane person would realise is that XMPP expertise won't help  
there at all, and that a good design would allow these additional  
technologies to be designed by others, and simply slotted in  
post-facto.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade


More information about the Standards mailing list