[Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression
Matthew A. Miller
linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Jul 7 19:52:41 UTC 2004
I don't think the Jabber Council would be opposed to a JEP or two
documenting this. However, this is useful enough to all of XMPP-land
that submitting a new I-D to the IETF would likely be the best course of
Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534 wrote:
>>From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
>>[mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 5:51 AM
>>To: standards-jig at jabber.org
>>Subject: RE: [Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression
>>Boyd Fletcher wrote
>>>acutally we are having bandwidth issues with XMPP. Yes it
>>>SIMPLE but compared to IRC there is a considerable difference. In
>>>highly bandwidth constrained environments ( < 1Kb/s, yes 1024
>>>bits/second), XMPP's XML overhead is a significant penalty
>>>IRC. In the tactical world its not uncommon to have a
>>single 64 Kb/s satellite (e.g.
>>>INMARSAT) connection over which to run an entire ship's (or army
>>>unit's) external comms.
>>My bad, I overlooked this aspect of networking. For someone
>>that initially started doing wireless communication, this is
>>not a good sign....
>>In the end it seems you really have a problem to solve that
>>requires some efficiency improvement on the transport. And
>>you need it soon, not to say now :)
> yes. "now" would be an understatement. we trying to replace IRC's use in DOD with a next generation protocol. The two obvious replacements are SIMPLE and XMPP. I'm rather partial to XMPP for a variety reasons but we are running into bandwidth issues.
> Since there seems to be two "camps" with respect to compression of XMPP, how about we use an approach like what Joe Hildebrand suggested for selecting the method then work on two JEPs for block compression and fast infosets?
> But what's really the best method for the compression negiotation changes? RFC modification or JEP?
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards