[Standards] various rfc3920bis feedback

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Wed Feb 25 19:23:24 UTC 2009


Pavel Simerda wrote:
> IMO the whole idea of piggybacking is misguided. Piggybacking means
> re-using a connection A for data that would otherwise come in B.

The name is misleading.

> It would be better to think about it as a generic multiplex. Then all
> virtual connections would be equal (A and B, specifically). One would
> immediately see the consequences of closing the physical connection
> (that should only be closed if all virtual connections are closed).

Piggybacking is the ability to have more than one validated combination
of 'from' and 'to' on single XML stream. There was no preference of A
over B originally, 0.9 streams did not have from/to attributes iirc.

> Keeping this as an optional feature (I believe that is a near consensus)
 > will further simplify the most basic implementations.

The last consensus I know of was to make passive support a MUST even:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-June/015673.html
Did I miss something?



More information about the Standards mailing list