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

Stephen Pendleton spendleton at movsoftware.com
Mon Mar 28 19:46:02 UTC 2005

That makes sense to me - I don't have a concrete example where it would be
needed. Hopefully this JEP will get approved soon!


-----Original Message-----
From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
[mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:16 PM
To: Jabber protocol discussion list
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] changes to JEP-0138 (Stream Compression)?

I'd be happy to add feature negotiation, if I could think of a use case to
write examples for.  If we can't find a concrete example, then the
negotiation can be handled on a per-compression-scheme basis, and specified
in the spec for that compression scheme.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:52:59 +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers
<thoutbeckers at splendo.com> wrote:
> 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. 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org 
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig

Joe Hildebrand
Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list