[jdev] Algorithms and XMPP

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sun Feb 21 17:22:08 CST 2010


On 2/21/10 8:18 AM, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are a number of algorithms an XMPP developer needs to deal with,
>> either directly or through a library. Some of these are defined in XEPs,
>> while some are external specifications which we work with.
>>
>> These include:
>>
>> * DIGEST-MD5
>> * SCRAM
>> * Entity capabilities hashing
>> * JID escaping
>>
>> Over the years, I’ve seen people trying to implement these through trial and
>> error, and frequently getting them done only partially correctly. After
>> helping people fix their DIGEST-MD5 implementations at least a dozen times,
>> I think we have a problem.
>>
>> I propose that we start a small project to act as an aggregator for existing
>> open source implementations which could be used as references. Once we have
>> that going, an implementation selected for its readability could become the
>> (official?) reference implementation.
>>
>> What this would achieve:
>>
>> 1. It would save people writing new implementations hours and hours of
>> guesswork
>> 2. It would make new implementations more interoperable, reducing the chance
>> of mistakes
>> 3. It would make existing implementations more visible, improving the chance
>> of mistakes being found and reported, and implementations being reused
>> 4. For experimental XEPs this would give direct evidence of how simple or
>> complex an algorithm is, what the edge cases are, and if it could be
>> simplified without losing its important characteristics
>>
>> In fact I wouldn’t mind it being required that any XEP moving beyond
>> Experimental have implementations available for the algorithms it defines,
>> under a permissive license.
>>
>> I’m hoping to not be the only one who sees this as a problem we should
>> solve. What does everyone else think?
> 
> 
> 
> Problems with reference implementations:
> - Programming language dependent (eg. does a Python reference
> implementation help an Erlang developer?)
> - Platform dependent
> - Not subject to same design goals as other implementations
> - Impossible to create one software which implements every XEP.
> Compatibility issues between various "references."
> - Huge resource sink (time spent on an implementation that may not be
> used by many)
> - Will still have bugs which may then become de-facto standard
> - (Perceived) reduction in openness of XSF and XEP process
> - Political fighting over which is the "official" implementation

That's a good list. In the future if someone asks me about a reference
implementation I shall point them at your message. :)

> The only meaningful references are open standards and protocol/data
> specs. I agree that there are many compatibility problems, because
> specs are not easy to understand, but that's a fact of life in such a
> heterogeneous community as XSF.
> 
> IMO the most effective answer to these problems is testing. Create a
> list of challenge/response cases for servers or clients, validate
> logged XMPP data in all XEP namespaces, write functional tests for
> XMPP libraries, and so on. The topic of protocol test suites has come
> up often but I don't know of any real progress.

I think we need a good, cross-platform test harness.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20100221/67929b0a/attachment.bin>


More information about the JDev mailing list