[Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression

Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534 Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Wed Jul 7 20:16:48 UTC 2004


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG 
> [mailto:jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:51 PM
> To: Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534; standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: RE: [Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression
> 
> 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...

I couldn't agree more about SIMPLE.

> 
> 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.
> 

we are already working on a bridging approaches in DOD but lack the bandwidth solution that hopefully we start resolving soon.

Since Antepo has developed an implementation of a block compression method for XMPP, any chance ya'll can write the initial JEP draft?


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

if we go for standards track, but informational is a much faster process.


> 
> 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