[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution

Carlo v. Loesch CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Wed May 17 18:37:42 UTC 2006


Jean-Louis Seguineau typeth:
| I believe Peter already highlighted the subtle difference between extending

Well what is there to break if something that until now caused an error
after a negotiation is supposed to do a useful job?

| and breaking ;) As to multicast, if you are referring to IP multicast, then

Are you trying to make fun of me? IP Multicast is a totally different
technology. It is this your own loved standards-jig list where the
multicast term was used even in a subject line. Please go back to last
months archive and read your discussion on multicast, as you're apparently
not up to date with the current progression of things on this list.

| obviously the RFC does not address it. This does not imply that XMPP is not
| able to provide efficient information broadcasts in its current form.

Broad Unicast, or what you call "Broadcast" is very far from what one
would call efficient distribution. If you'd like to know how multicast
can be very successful without using IP Multicast, you can even read the
IRC spec. If there's one thing IRC does okay, it's multicasting channel
conversations.

| Actually you can achieve similar results using the current XMPP protocol

I have no idea what you are talking about. The XMPP has zero mechanism
for sending an information to more than one recipient, except for the
<presence/> sent by clients.

| example. But I know a number of other list members which are more qualified
| than I am on these subjects. Their opinion certainly matters.  

Yes, bring them on.

| XMPP. Before talking about 'anyone's actual requirements', it would be sound

The requirements were exposed last month in the discussion on MUC and
multicast.

| > or less complicated. It only gives you less traffic on the network.
| 
| So you say. This is the whole point. You have so far provided no tangible

Read the JEP, see how even in the Example the amount of traffic reduces to
the half. Since _all_ presence transmissions are _always_ reduced it cannot
by logic or mathematics be otherwise. Even if only one person is on the
other side, you would still transmit a "to=..." less than before.
What is there to prove about the absolutely obvious and trivial?




More information about the Standards mailing list