[Standards] Nonzas: What are they and do we need them?
waqas20 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 22:52:06 UTC 2015
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> On 20.04.2015 18:22, Christian Schudt wrote:
> >> For me personally, the contra-Nonza arguments did not convince me. It
> >> appears that nothing in the specification prevents you from using Nonzas
> >> after resource binding with BOSH. XEP-206 3. only says "SHOULD contain".
> >> I also don't see why they would introduce "a bunch of conceptual and
> >> implementations problems".
> > I agree with you. The contra arguments are weak. I think Prosody even
> advertises XEP-0198 over BOSH, so clients would use it. And I also see no
> implementation problems.
> Not sure what prosody is doing and it's slightly unrelated to the Nonza
> discussion, but I want to point out that it makes no sense to use xep198
> SM over BOSH.
Ignoring Prosody for a moment, why do you think 198 on BOSH is nonsensical?
BOSH is a low level protocol, and the stream abstraction still exists.
XEP-0198 operates over the stream abstraction. Whether it's TCP, BOSH,
WebSocket or something else under the stream, 198 can continue operating.
It certainly isn't (and shouldn't be) disallowed.
Use-case: you can in theory start a BOSH stream, and use 198 to upgrade to
a WebSocket stream later. It's an interesting idea, where you can swap the
low level transport based on changing network conditions without
interrupting the user's session.
I'm not sure if this works in Prosody (if it doesn't, then advertising it
is a bug).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards