[Standards] offline delivery when the connection is broken

Jehan Jehan.3clkvg at no-mx.jabberforum.org
Tue Jul 15 16:14:17 UTC 2008

Kevin Smith;1753 Wrote: 
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Jehan
> <Jehan.3clj1z (AT) no-mx (DOT) jabberforum.org> wrote:
> > Anyway don't you think this would be better to improve client and
> > server implementations rather than adding a new layer atop all the
> > current one? XMPP is made to be exchanged on top of a reliable
> > connection (most common and the one it has mostly been designed for
> > being TCP!). In such context you already have aknowledgments about
> > succeeded transfer or not.
> Oh if it were that simple :)
> I believe this has been discussed before at greater length than I have
> the knowledge to repeat but the summary is:
> 1) Your application may not be able to get the TCP/IP state directly
> enough from the stack to know about failures.
> 2) Your TCP/IP stack, or your provider's, may be neutered such that
> the ACKs don't mean anything useful anyway.
> 3) You might be using a different transport.
> /K

Ok, if you say so. I know the TCP protocol theoritically from
university but it is true I have never been interested enough to look at
the real implementations. So all I really know about TCP (else than
theory) is in fact the different available APIs of socket programming.

Then I guess a stanza aknowledgement is useful.

But just for my own information: do you know the opinion of network
developpers about this flaw when losing a connection (which is common on
unreliable network materials nowaydays)? Do they just consider this as
normal that their implementation does not report to the higher layers a
failure of data transfer because of unexpected closed connection?
Or are developpers trying to fix this?


Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911
View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=417

More information about the Standards mailing list