[Standards-JIG] Re: component protocol
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Nov 17 08:03:13 UTC 2006
I support Matthias approach here. If we make components able to connect
directly, they become de-facto similar to IM servers, with the associated
advantages and drawbacks. In particular, it could impose a dependence on DNS
which components do not need.
IMO components are meant to extend the functionality of an associated
server, and sometimes do not provide services which are visible to an end
users. They may need to receive stanzas independently from any DNS
resolution. In many cases, they will be part of a greater whole comprising a
Rationalizing the namespace is probably the way to go. But as many servers
use the "jabber:component:accept" to differentiate from an S2S connection we
need to come up with a better alternative than just connecting on a
different port. Maybe adding a new optional feature on the stream...
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:42:01 +0100
From: Matthias Wimmer <m at tthias.eu>
Subject: [Standards-JIG] Re: component protocol
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <455CE939.80805 at tthias.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
> I agree that TLS+SASL is the right way for components to connect to the
> server. Are you saying that they would use the "jabber:server"
> namespace? Also does it make sense for components to be able to connect
> to each other (mesh network) without going through the router?
I didn't mean that each component should implement it's own full s2s
I think the components could just connect to "their" server and use this
server as a "smart host". They could even connect to other ports than
5269 on the server (like components at present to as well).
What I want to propose is that their connection uses the same stream
protocol as s2s links with the exception, that they would be bi-directional.
Basically this would mean, that we change the links namespace from
"jabber:component:accept" to "jabber:server". The different namespace is
not necessary as the server can detect the type of connection by the
entity that authenticates (and optionally by using another socket for
incoming component connections than for incoming s2s connections).
And we would change the authentication from the <hash/> element to using
More information about the Standards