[Standards] switching between BOSH and TCP?

Fabio Forno fabio.forno at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 20:58:33 UTC 2008


On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

Besides Justin's observation, which is correct, which are the possible
problems of BOSH for moobiles?
I can just think of one, bandwidth due to the additional HTTP headers
and the <body/> bag. If so it's more reasonable defining some "binary"
(no joke intended... ;)) headers containing contenght length, sid and
rid, than adding incredible complexity by switching transports. We
would lose the ability of passing through web servers, but I don't
think that specialized BBOSH (Binary BBOSH)  would be a problem, if
the real issue is bandwidth. Another possible optimization could be
allowing compression on the raw sockets in which we pipeline HTTP
requests, thus compressing headers too (that is what normally happens
with HTTPS...).

>
>  So a few questions:
>
>  1. Is BOSH acceptable in practice for high-activity periods?
>
>  2. Do people think that this kind of transport-switch will solve
>  existing problems?
>
>  3. Would the costs (complexity of switching) outweigh the benefits?
>
>  I think we might want to consider something like this in the future if
>  we discover that BOSH doesn't work well in practice, but IMHO we need
>  more deployment experience with BOSH before we can know the answer.

-- 
Fabio Forno, Ph.D.
Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com
jabber id: ff at jabber.bluendo.com



More information about the Standards mailing list