[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet.org
Fri Dec 6 12:26:45 UTC 2013


On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:59:53AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Alexander Holler:
> > - machines should be able to communicate without the need for a server
> 
> That is one reason why I think that interoperability with P2P standards
> makes sense.

Sure, that sounds like a great idea, but... how do you discover said 
user's IP address without the use of a server somewhere?  Then add the 
joy of multiple layers of shifting NAT into the mix for some real 
hair-pulling.

IMO "P2P interoperability" sounds like a barely-thought-out solution in 
search of an ill-defined problem.

I could expand on my reasoning if there's interest, otherwise it's 
pretty off-topic.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy        		       pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL                          ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/operators/attachments/20131206/7d778bbd/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Operators mailing list