[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0198 (Stream Management)

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Wed Jun 17 19:47:49 UTC 2009

hi Justin,

Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009 12:53:35 Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
>> Session resumption is only explained for c2s. Can s2s explicitly be
>> declared out-of-scope due to possible interactions with multiplexing?
> Are you suggesting that we should not have s2s session resumption, but you're 
> okay with s2s acking?

I just don't see yet what exactly session resumption means in the s2s
context. s2s acking might help, although I think that s2s connections
are already far more reliable than it is rumored. The main problem there
is imo overly aggressive use of stream errors.

> I think we do want session resumption over s2s.  
> What interactions are a problem?

For tls multiplexing: yes - as it may save lots of certificate
exchanges. But there is no spec for that yet, just a requirements draft.

> Just keep the state, whatever it is.

The 'whatever' is the problem. Actually, I think it is just the list of
domains authorized to send/receive for the stream.


More information about the Standards mailing list