[Standards-JIG] Reliable message delivery (the tcp problem)
stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Apr 24 17:42:06 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Pavel ?imerda wrote:
> I am still thinking about message delivery problems. Message receipts
> (jep-0184) is imho not a solution (it has many issues like retrying,
> privacy and more).
Why not? Isn't any proposal to introduce "reliability" for each
connection going to have "issues"? What exactly does JEP-0184 not solve?
> I think that individual connections should be made reliable (in some way).
> For mi it meants that all the time, there is just one entity responsible
> for the message.
For you, yes. But "reliability" (guaranteed delivery) is not a
requirement for all uses of XMPP. In particular, most IM users don't
care about 100% reliability.
Thanks, those are helpful.
> Solutions on tcp level seem to be problematic. I saw some suggestions at
> Solutions on ip level (icmp packets) are both late and unreliable.
> Is there a reasonable way to solve this? It would make Jabber/XMPP a
> reliable protocol (people have to use reliable and compliant software, of
> course). I read some suggestions at
Way back at the Yokohama BOF (before the XMPP WG was accepted by the
IETF), so-called "guaranteed delivery" was decided to be out of scope
for XMPP, a decision that was further confirmed by WG consensus at IETF
55 in November 2002 (IIRC).
It seems to me that JEP-0184 solves your three bad scenarios. My sense
is that you don't like it because it is not "general" -- that is, it
needs to be supported on each client and is not enforced by the servers.
Is that accurate?
Jabber Software Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards