[Standards-JIG] changes to JEP-0138 (Stream Compression)?

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Sun Mar 27 15:52:59 UTC 2005


On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:47:35 +0200, Stephen Pendleton  
<spendleton at movsoftware.com> wrote:

>
>>> Point taken about zlib. However the overall issue is that the current
>>> proposal limits the implementation to zlib. Perhaps the JEP could be
>>> rewritten to be more flexible. At this point though I would be willing
>>> to test against any server implementation that is out there. Maybe zlib
> is
>>> the
>>> only choice we need. If anyone has added this to a server please let me
>>> know.
>
>> You can just add other <method>s can't you? I expect to see
>> implementations for XML specific compression or encoding in the future  
>> as
>> well. They'd work with this too...
>
> I suppose you could add other methods. It does say this in the JEP,  
> which I
> missed, presumably by adding other <method> stanzas:
>
> <stream:features>
>   <starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/>
>   <compression xmlns='http://jabber.org/features/compress'>
>     <method>zlib</method>
>     <method>foozip</method>
>   </compression>
> </stream:features>
>
> Now my only real issue is that if the future compression methods used
> require parameters, or further negotiation, then the current JEP isn't
> flexible enough to handle them. However I can't think of any that do - so
> that may not be an issue.

You could either put the parameter in "method" name as you orginally  
suggested. You also do (yet another) stream renegotiation, as described in  
the JEP for such a new method. Perhaps a generic way of using FNEG could  
be described in such a JEP as well.



More information about the Standards mailing list