[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.

Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com
Wed Jun 30 09:19:23 UTC 2004

AFAIN having TLS implies to use a crypto provider on the target platform. On
many small foot print devices this is either not available or buried in some
communication chip that most programming language cannot reach.

In such situation, it may just be more practical to only implement a stream
compression, as ZIP libraries are more readily available.

Just by its very nature of a text representation, XML lend itself well to
compression. As Joe Hildebrand hinted, our server can be set-up to use on
the fly ZIP compression on c2s or s2s connections with good results. Because
of the lack of 'feature' advertising it is still considered 'proprietary',
but I do not see why it could not be extended to everybody's use.


P.S. On a more general stand, I have seen good remarks on this thread about
trying to minimize the size of the XML payload as much as possible. I would
only point out that using slightly shorter namespaces would definitively go
in the right direction, as this would decrease EVERY stanza's size
accordingly, not just one of them once and a while :)

I there a valid requirement to use http://jabber.org/protocol/muc (30
characters) instead of for example xmpp:muc (8 characters) ?

-----Original Message-----

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:18:07 +0200
From: Ralph Meijer <jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0060: Comments on latest draft.
To: pendleto at movsoftware.com,	Jabber protocol discussion list
	<standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <20040628071807.GA10895 at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:03:31PM -0400, Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> Just FYI: TLS compression would work, but doesn't exist on some platforms
> currently (Windows Mobile, PocketPC, Smartphones, etc). I am not sure
> other non-Unix non-Win32 platforms. I have been hoping that a server
> developer could offer some solution to this issue at some point.

I'm confused. If TLS is not available, but other server side solutions would
implementable (surely you'd need something on the client side as well), why
just write a TLS implementation?


More information about the Standards mailing list