[Standards] certification etc.
Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935
Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Wed Mar 21 00:11:59 UTC 2007
Unless you are running over low bandwidth communications like SATCOM or
Cellular Modems. We use lots of high latency low b/w communications links.
TLS does not work well in those environments which is why we use straight
ZLIB and are looking at supporting efficient XML.
The new Efficient XML specification from W3.org (not officially out yet, but
will be soon) will offer better compression that zlib with less CPU
resources used. It can even make parsing the XML faster in some cases.
So in places like villages in Africa, South America, or Asia that lack T1
lines and Fiber connections the use of compression can make XMPP a viable
technology for collaboration. Without compression they simply do not have
the b/w (which is often shared with many users) to use collaboration
technologies like XMPP. So to me, that sounds like a pretty big
On 3/20/07 11:16 AM, "Mridul" <mridul at sun.com> wrote:
> I agree with Stephen.
> Compression is a nice to have feature with significant value, but there
> is no functionality addition - dont really think it must be part of
> basic or even intermediate im suite for that matter.
> Also, it adds functionality which is mirror'ed to an extent by simply
> supporting tls compression.
> Stephen Pendleton wrote:
>> > Stream compression for clients or servers? I just want to throw in an
>> > opinion that we don't want to load too many requirements or recommendations
>> > into the "Basic IM" suite since mobile clients really don't need (or can't
>> > handle due to environmental constraints) lots of features. I think
>> > compression is a nice to have feature, but not a basic one.
>> > I think the current list in XEP-0073 is reasonable though as long as
>> > "recommended" doesn't become "required in order to get a link on xmpp.com".
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
>> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:16 PM
>> > To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
>> > Subject: Re: [Standards] certification etc.
>> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> >>> XEP-0073: Basic IM Protocol Suite
>>>> >>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0073.html
>>> >> Basic seems fine to me now. But we'll need to think about how Basic
>>> >> interacts with the RFC revisions, which won't be published by the end of
>>> >> June.
>> > Looking at the Draft and Final XEPs, I think we may want to make stream
>> > compression (XEP-0138) recommended. Thoughts?
>> > /psa
More information about the Standards