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/
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.
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet@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
On 7 October 2025 22:23:27 CEST, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet@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.
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
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 21:23, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
On 10/7/25 1:52 PM, marc.blanchet@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.
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
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 20:52, <marc.blanchet@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.
Possibly worth noting that XMPP already operates (quite nicely, even) over comparatively high delay networks in various non-internet settings; it might be very useful to look into this and improve it further based on this work. After all, if we can operate better on 4-22 minute delays, then operating over 30s latencies will be improved, too. Dave.
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@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@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
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@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@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
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@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@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@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
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@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@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
participants (7)
-
Dave Cridland -
Guus der Kinderen -
marc.blanchet＠viagenie.ca -
Matthew Wild -
Peter Saint-Andre -
Ralph Meijer -
Schimon Jehudah