[Standards-JIG] XMPP bandwidth compression
pgmillard at gmail.com
Wed Jul 7 21:52:42 UTC 2004
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:46:18 -0400, Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534
<boyd.fletcher at je.jfcom.mil> wrote:
> 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.
Aren't the bandwidth issues even worse for SIMPLE? From the sample
packets that I've seen, it would surely seem so.
> 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?
The drafts WILL not change at this poinrt (I'm talking about -core and
-im) as they have completed the IESG review, etc. I'm not sure how new
stream-features get registered. I presume this is handled by IANA now
(stpeter??). This would have to be a new I-D, or just simply use a JEP
to document your own extensions. ie, there is nothing preventing you
from using a stream feature which is in your own (or the DOD's
namespace), and then documenting it someplace.
More information about the Standards