7 Oct
2025
7 Oct
'25
9:42 p.m.
No, the subject line of this message is not a joke. :-)
The IETF has formed a "TIPTOP" working group to study and adapt Internet
protocols for communication over interplanetary distances. [1] If anyone
here is interested in this topic, I encourage you read their documents
[2] and sign up for their email discussion list [3].
Thanks for your attention!
Peter
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/about/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/documents/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/deepspace/
7 Oct
7 Oct
9:52 p.m.
thanks Peter. interplanetary means: long delays and disruptions. Earth to Mars one way
delay = 4-22 minutes. So a messaging/protocol should not be "interactive" by
having all kind of updates which are not real messages. Moreover, the transport has to be
compatible. TCP won't work with this use case, so we are using a space profiled QUIC.
So we would need XMPP over QUIC, which AFAIK is not active.
Any help deeply appreciated.
Marc.
10:23 p.m.
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet(a)viagenie.ca wrote:
thanks Peter. interplanetary means: long delays and
disruptions. Earth to Mars one way delay = 4-22 minutes. So a messaging/protocol should
not be "interactive" by having all kind of updates which are not real messages.
Moreover, the transport has to be compatible. TCP won't work with this use case, so we
are using a space profiled QUIC. So we would need XMPP over QUIC, which AFAIK is not
active.
Hi Marc, thanks for the additional context.
It's possible that some folks might be interested in XMPP over QUIC for
other reasons, so that might be a good place to start if those folks
(whoever they are!) have the energy to work on a spec for it.
Peter
8 Oct
8 Oct
12:12 a.m.
On 7 October 2025 22:23:27 CEST, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet(a)viagenie.ca wrote:
Indeed. When I was working at VEON, had our project continued, I'd added support for
XMPP over QUIC in our mobile apps. The primary reasons where: built-in TLS, 0 to few
roundtrips for reconnection, and switching between networks while retaining a (logical)
connections. Oh, and multiplexing and co-streaming with RTP, STUN, TURN. So, both for XMPP
as well as voice calls.
For the latter, consider the following. I was working in an office building for which
"our" wifi was on the 5th, 4th, and ground floor. When going for lunch and
having a call, I would have WiFi on the 5th, step in the elevator, lose wifi, so switch to
cellular. Elevator stops on the 4th, too, briefly switch back to WiFi, doors close again,
cellular, ground floor WiFi, exit the building and end on cellular again.
With QUIC you can retain the connection across those roaming changes, with virtually no
disruption.
I'd love being (professionally) involved in such a project again.
I totally see the value defining this at the IETF, and the interplanetary angle makes a
lof of sense to me. For regular messages, XMPP has great semantics in its protocol because
it doesn't require acks for the most basic stuff. Obviously some features will, as of
course iq stanzas.
--
ralphm
thanks Peter. interplanetary means: long delays
and disruptions. Earth to Mars one way delay = 4-22 minutes. So a messaging/protocol
should not be "interactive" by having all kind of updates which are not real
messages. Moreover, the transport has to be compatible. TCP won't work with this use
case, so we are using a space profiled QUIC. So we would need XMPP over QUIC, which AFAIK
is not active.
Hi Marc, thanks for the additional context.
It's possible that some folks might be interested in XMPP over QUIC for other reasons,
so that might be a good place to start if those folks (whoever they are!) have the energy
to work on a spec for it. 
12:29 p.m.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 21:23, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet(a)viagenie.ca wrote:
While I don't think any of the server implementations have QUIC
built-in yet, XMPP over QUIC is supported in
https://github.com/moparisthebest/xmpp-proxy which can be used
alongside any XMPP server to add QUIC support.
Regards,
Matthew
thanks Peter. interplanetary means: long delays
and disruptions. Earth to Mars one way delay = 4-22 minutes. So a messaging/protocol
should not be "interactive" by having all kind of updates which are not real
messages. Moreover, the transport has to be compatible. TCP won't work with this use
case, so we are using a space profiled QUIC. So we would need XMPP over QUIC, which AFAIK
is not active.
Hi Marc, thanks for the additional context.
It's possible that some folks might be interested in XMPP over QUIC for
other reasons, so that might be a good place to start if those folks
(whoever they are!) have the energy to work on a spec for it. 
7 Oct
7 Oct
10:06 p.m.
While I do appreciate some of the publication of IETF, I do not think
that it deserves any attention, especially not our attention, of the
people of XMPP, for the IETF has rejected Atomsub (Atom Over XMPP).
I do sense, that we should further incorporate more PPN (Peer-to-peer
Network) means into XMPP, and let thise "HTTP people" to "play" with
their own "soup", for a lack of a better phrase.
Lest forget that in the past those organizations have formed the
"Peer-to-peer Working Group" (peer-to-peerwg.org) in order to gradually
suppress P2P, not to promote it.
Schimon
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 13:42:31 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
No, the subject line of this message is not a joke.
:-)
The IETF has formed a "TIPTOP" working group to study and adapt
Internet protocols for communication over interplanetary distances.
[1] If anyone here is interested in this topic, I encourage you read
their documents [2] and sign up for their email discussion list [3].
Thanks for your attention!
Peter
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/about/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/documents/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/deepspace/
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
10:27 p.m.
Hi Schimon,
There are many people on this list, with their own interests. I would
not discourage them from contributing in their own ways: even if you
don't think this is an interesting problem, they might.
At to Atom Over XMPP, that was a somewhat experimental idea at the time
and IIRC we didn't really push it forward. So I would not judge an
entire organization (IETF) and the people involved in it today because
of something that happened in 2008. Also, the IETF *did* publish all the
core XMPP RFCs, and that has to count for something, no?
Peter
On 10/7/25 2:06 PM, Schimon Jehudah wrote:
While I do appreciate some of the publication of IETF,
I do not think
that it deserves any attention, especially not our attention, of the
people of XMPP, for the IETF has rejected Atomsub (Atom Over XMPP).
I do sense, that we should further incorporate more PPN (Peer-to-peer
Network) means into XMPP, and let thise "HTTP people" to "play" with
their own "soup", for a lack of a better phrase.
Lest forget that in the past those organizations have formed the
"Peer-to-peer Working Group" (peer-to-peerwg.org) in order to gradually
suppress P2P, not to promote it.
Schimon
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 13:42:31 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
> No, the subject line of this message is not a joke. :-)
>
> The IETF has formed a "TIPTOP" working group to study and adapt
> Internet protocols for communication over interplanetary distances.
> [1] If anyone here is interested in this topic, I encourage you read
> their documents [2] and sign up for their email discussion list [3].
>
> Thanks for your attention!
>
> Peter
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/about/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/documents/
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/deepspace/
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
8 Oct
8 Oct
5:35 a.m.
Peter. Good day.
Thank you for these fair arguments.
Yes. Indeed so.
I will explore this concern, then.
Schimon
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 14:27:06 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
Hi Schimon,
There are many people on this list, with their own interests. I would
not discourage them from contributing in their own ways: even if you
don't think this is an interesting problem, they might.
At to Atom Over XMPP, that was a somewhat experimental idea at the
time and IIRC we didn't really push it forward. So I would not judge
an entire organization (IETF) and the people involved in it today
because of something that happened in 2008. Also, the IETF *did*
publish all the core XMPP RFCs, and that has to count for something,
no?
Peter
On 10/7/25 2:06 PM, Schimon Jehudah wrote:
While I do appreciate some of the publication of
IETF, I do not
think that it deserves any attention, especially not our attention,
of the people of XMPP, for the IETF has rejected Atomsub (Atom Over
XMPP).
I do sense, that we should further incorporate more PPN
(Peer-to-peer Network) means into XMPP, and let thise "HTTP people"
to "play" with their own "soup", for a lack of a better phrase.
Lest forget that in the past those organizations have formed the
"Peer-to-peer Working Group" (peer-to-peerwg.org) in order to
gradually suppress P2P, not to promote it.
Schimon
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 13:42:31 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
> No, the subject line of this message is not a joke. :-)
>
> The IETF has formed a "TIPTOP" working group to study and adapt
> Internet protocols for communication over interplanetary distances.
> [1] If anyone here is interested in this topic, I encourage you
> read their documents [2] and sign up for their email discussion
> list [3].
>
> Thanks for your attention!
>
> Peter
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/about/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/documents/
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/deepspace/
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org 
7 Oct
7 Oct
11:52 p.m.
Hi Peter,
That sounds like fun! Some XMPP-based solutions that exist today are
optimized for low bandwidth / high latency scenario's - although "in space"
takes this to a new level.
I don't expect that many of our solutions would immediately map well to an
application in outer space, but I am curious if any of them do, and/or if
they can be adapted. I wonder if work on such extreme use cases would bring
us improvements for the solutions that we already have for constrained
scenarios that are (literally) a bit closer to home.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 9:42 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
No, the subject line of this message is not a joke.
:-)
The IETF has formed a "TIPTOP" working group to study and adapt Internet
protocols for communication over interplanetary distances. [1] If anyone
here is interested in this topic, I encourage you read their documents
[2] and sign up for their email discussion list [3].
Thanks for your attention!
Peter
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/about/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tiptop/documents/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/deepspace/
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
1
days inactive
2
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Guus der Kinderen -
marc.blanchet＠viagenie.ca -
Matthew Wild -
Peter Saint-Andre -
Ralph Meijer -
Schimon Jehudah