[Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression

Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com
Wed Jul 7 19:50:57 UTC 2004


>From experience, there is a 1/4 ratio on average in favor of XMPP over
simple. So from a pure technical standpoint the problem should be even worth
for SIMPLE. That said the only SIMPLE around is MSFT, and they have very
deep pockets to get their stuff adopted...

Getting XMPP to replace IRC in that context is an achievable goal. And
although I agree that we should be careful not to cast in stone an
incomplete approach to the issue, we may want to have an interim period with
a tactical solution. While keeping open from the start that this not the
definitive answer.

I have the feeling the IETF way may take longer than a JEP, but I may be
mistaking.

Jean-Louis

-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534 [mailto:Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:46 PM
To: jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com; Jabber protocol discussion list
Subject: RE: [Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression




> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org 
> [mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG
> 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 
> better than 
> > 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 
> compared to 
> > 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 :)
> 
> Jean-Louis

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?


boyd




More information about the Standards mailing list