[Standards] XEP-0138 vs. TLS compression

Boyd Fletcher boyd.fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Thu Aug 30 16:22:06 UTC 2007


I strongly disagree. I think that sends a confusing message to developers.

Perhaps, we should remove all the compression algorithm references XEP-138
and have it only specify the core approach. Then create new XEPs for
specific implementations: ZLIB, LZW, EXI, etc.... That is analogous to how
the IETF does it - look at how they handled RTP and the different packet
formats.

Or, we make XEP-138 obsolete and create a new one that adds EXI. IETF also
does this approach.

But having a separate XEP for just EXI for stream compression would I think
be sending a confusing message to developers.

boyd



On 8/30/07 11:46 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>> 
>>> I was thinking we would just add it to XEP-138 instead of writing a
>>> new XEP.
>> 
>> I'm really opposed to changing XEPs to add new features, particularly
>> ones that are:
>> a) widely deployed
>> b) designed to be extensible, with a registry to define the extension
>> points
>> 
>> There's no reason why this can't be a new XEP, and leave the existing
>> XEP completely unmodified.
> 
> We did add a mention of the LZW method to XEP-0138 (then JEP-0138) in
> late 2005, but our approach to updating specificiations was less formal
> back then. I agree that a small XEP about this would be appropriate,
> then we can add a reference from XEP-0138 to the new spec.
> 
> Peter



More information about the Standards mailing list