[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Joe Hildebrand joe.hildebrand at webex.com
Wed Jan 12 20:20:39 UTC 2011


We would like to see another attribute on the <enabled/> element that tells
you where to reconnect if you get disconnected.  If you're using a load
balancer in front of a large number of front-end boxes, getting back to the
same one (instead of getting load balanced again) would be a nice way to
find the session state that you need in order to resume.


On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

> In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the
> status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly
> come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198.
> 
> Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion
> thread about this spec:
> 
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html
> 
> I see two main points...
> 
> 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation
> feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here:
> 
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
> 
> I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be
> applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from
> my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally.
> 
> 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule
> (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example,
> Matthew Wild wrote:
> 
>    I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based
>    algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout
>    handshake...
> 
> IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course
> here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless
> I'm missing something obvious.
> 
> Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198?
> 
> Peter

-- 
Joe Hildebrand




More information about the Standards mailing list