[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Tobias Markmann tmarkmann at googlemail.com
Wed Apr 2 23:32:54 UTC 2008

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Wed Apr  2 23:22:12 2008, CvL at mail.symlynX.com wrote:
>  1) It's much simpler to implement, and2) Given that we are (or should be)
> encrypting every S2S connection, then TLS is giving us compression anyway,
> and moreover, it's cheaper to compress than not to compress.

That may be right from the spec but in real world it's a lot worse. TLS
doesn't really give use compression anyway.
See this from the man page on SSL_COMP_add_compression_method(3) (OpenSSL):

> The TLS standard (or SSLv3) allows the integration of compression methods
> into the communication. The TLS RFC does however not specify compression
> methods or their corresponding identifiers, so there is currently no
> compatible way to integrate compression with unknown peers. It is therefore
> currently not recommended to integrate compression into applications.
> Applications for non-public use may agree on certain compression methods.
> Using different compression methods with the same identifier will lead to
> connection failure.

The only way to make use of TLS's compression capabilities is to get all
XMPP servers and clients use the same compression methods and same
identifiers for those methods otherwise TLS just does NOT do compression.
Since this seems very unlikely I prefer applying XEP-0138 and then TLS.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080403/97ef1164/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list