[Standards-JIG] Re: XMPP bandwidth compression

JD Conley jconley at winfessor.com
Tue Jul 13 04:26:34 UTC 2004


My idea of using an x:data configuration form hasn't received any
comments.  :)  Most network applications that do compression (SSH, etc)
allow you to set the compression level as to optimize for your
particular environment.  X:data seems like a very easy way to accomplish
that for the incoming stream, if the receiver allows it.

JD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Hildebrand [mailto:hildjj at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:54 PM
> To: jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com; Jabber protocol discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Re: XMPP bandwidth compression
> 
> Isn't Zip a TM?  ZLIB is a compression algorithm defined in RFC 1950,
> so it should be fine to use.
> 
> The compression -> compress -> compressed modulation is exactly what I
> intended.  This was to make each state in the transition explicit,
> with no possible ambiguity.
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:59:14 -0400, Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG
> <jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com> wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > Good starting point. In addition to the first comments you already
> received,
> > there seams to be some inconsistency in the examples where some use
> > <compression> and some use <compress>. I believe you meant to use
> <compress>
> > everywhere?
> >
> > IFAIC I have some difficulty with using zlib as the name of the
> compression
> > method. I would be more inclined to use a more generic name such as
zip.
> > Zlib has a connotation to the library, not really the method, if you
see
> > what I mean.
> >
> > I believe that we do not need much more than that to get going.
> >
> > Jean-Louis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:15:08 -0600
> > From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> > Subject: [Standards-JIG] Re: XMPP bandwidth compression
> > To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> > Message-ID: <pan.2004.07.09.17.15.06.398937 at jabber.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:52:42 -0600, Peter Millard wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > SIMPLE's bandwidth requirements are at least 3 or 4 times larger
than
> > XMPP's, and it will be a while before those folks have a protocol
(let
> > alone implementations) that will replace IRC.
> >
> > >> 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?
> >
> > Joe has submitted a proposal for stream compression here:
> >
> > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/inbox/compress.html
> >
> > If the Council does not object, this will be published as a JEP in 7
> days.
> >
> > > The drafts WILL not change at this poinrt (I'm talking about -core
and
> > > -im) as they have completed the IESG review, etc.
> >
> > Absolutely no more changes to those documents, other than nits that
can
> be
> > addressed in Author's 48 hours.
> >
> > > I'm not sure how new
> > > stream-features get registered. I presume this is handled by IANA
now
> > > (stpeter??).
> >
> > There is no IANA registry for this. However, the Jabber Registrar is
> > maintaining such a registry:
> >
> > http://www.jabber.org/registrar/stream-features.html
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > See above for Joe's proposal. If someone wants to submit one for
fast
> > infosets, feel free.
> >
> > /psa
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig




More information about the Standards mailing list