[Standards] various rfc3920bis feedback
pavlix at pavlix.net
Wed Feb 25 20:15:47 UTC 2009
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:23:24 +0100
Philipp Hancke <fippo at goodadvice.pages.de> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that's only what the name suggests.... and from/to was something I
first ask about... it actually seems it brings more trouble that it
saves... or not?
> > 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:
> Did I miss something?
I was referring to what I heard at jdev@ some time ago, ask Peter for
details (you'll have more after the council). The mail seems too old to
AFAIK (and it's also what I understood from stpeter) backwords
compatibility is now being solved by *compatibility notes* in the RFC
and not by treating compatibility hacks as eternal truth :). Anyway
dialback is not included in 3920bis at all.
I am sure that compatibility is a critical feature... and I like the
way rfc3920bis is written... with compatibility notes being clearly
distinguished from other text.
Freelance consultant and trainer
in networking, communications and security.
Jabber, Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
More information about the Standards