[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0124: comments on proposed version 1.5

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Fri Apr 28 12:42:50 UTC 2006


> Peter wrote:
>>     *Some runtime environments constrain the number of simultaneous HTTP
>> requests a client may make to each connection manager; if such clients
>> need to connect using more than one account at the same time, then
>> support for multi-stream sessions is essential.
>>
>>     * While XMPP does not allow two sessions with the same full JID to
>> be open at the same time, it does use one stream in each direction for
>> client-to-server connections; support for multiple streams enables
>> clients that connect via the HTTP Binding to emulate that behavior and
>> thereby reduce network traffic.

I don't understand this second point (even if I assume that 
'server-to-server' was meant instead of 'client-to-server').

The intention of the original text was simply to say that restricted clients 
*need* multi-streams if they want to open more than one XMPP stream (with 
different JIDs). Other entities might not need to support multi-stream 
sessions in these cases (they could open multiple sessions instead), but it 
would be much more efficient for them to employ multi-stream sessions. 
(Since with multi-stream sessions only one HTTP request to the server is 
necessary to service all the streams in the session.)

I agree with the rest of Peter's clarifications.

Vinod wrote:
> Shouldn't multi-stream support go into a separate JEP?  This could be
> used on both ends of a JEP-0124 implementation.  Eg. an HTTP client
> using multiple streams to a JEP-0124 server, and the JEP-0124 server
> using a single tcp connection with multiple streams to an xmpp server.

IMO multi-stream sessions fitted very neatly into JEP-0124.

Broadening the explicit target of JEP-0124 to include server-to-server 
connections would seem to be a good idea - especially if people do start 
running their own servers (something Peter often advocates). The existing 
JEP would probably only need an extra sentence in the introduction and a few 
minor language changes (e.g. 'client' -> 'entity'). I think any security 
review should take those changes into account.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list