[Standards] various rfc3920bis feedback

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Wed Feb 25 21:48:35 UTC 2009


Pavel Simerda wrote:
>> 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?

Piggybacking is going to be necessary in the future, considering a limit
on simultaneous connections as described in 0205.

>>> 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?
> 
> 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
> me.

S2S topics are not very frequent.

> 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 :). 

Piggybacking is not a hack. Would you please read Robs summary on s2s
issues:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/xmppwg/2004-February/002008.html
It has a whole section on why piggybacking and backward compability
is necessary.

philipp,
wondering about a "piggybacking sucks" note on his rfc3920bis-01 copy



More information about the Standards mailing list