[Standards] Initial thoughts on Raft over XMPP

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Jul 21 10:40:15 UTC 2015


On 21 July 2015 at 10:53, Peter Membrey <peter at membrey.hk> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks for the encouragement and feedback!
>
> I'm working on the ProtoXEP now and I think it's coming along quite
> nicely. I hope to be able to submit it soon.
>
> I could use some guidance on how to best approach describing this
> protocol. The challenge is that I want to describe a transport layer for
> Raft, but I don't actually want to end up trying to describe Raft itself.
> For example, when I have an element with a number of attributes, should I
> be defining and explaining those attributes? Should I be explaining
> different conversations that two "Raft nodes" might under different (Raft
> related) circumstances, even though the message structure from XMPP's point
> of view is the same?
>
> I guess what I'm asking is, where should I draw the line between
> explaining what messages are needed in XMPP to support Raft and Raft
> itself...
>
>
It needs to make clear sense to someone who is not currently familiar with
Raft; so you need to explain where to find the supporting information. You
should avoid defining things defined in the Raft spec.

Examples are always good, especially if there are examples in the
literature that you can recast into your XMPP transport.


> Thanks in advance!
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Peter Membrey
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.net>
> To: "XMPP Standards" <standards at xmpp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 July, 2015 01:17:17
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Initial thoughts on Raft over XMPP
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 7/20/15 5:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On 20 July 2015 at 10:11, Peter Membrey <peter at membrey.hk> wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> As the subject suggests, I'm really interested in using the Raft
> >> consensus protocol over XMPP. I'll give you some background on
> >> the project I'm working on, some info on Raft and will then try
> >> to explain why I think XMPP is a great choice for transporting
> >> the raft data. It's the first time I've considered working on an
> >> XEP, so any constructive or critical feedback will truly be
> >> welcome! Also, thanks in advance for taking the time to read
> >> through all this.
> >
> >> I am already working on a prototype to let me do this using
> >> custom <message/> stanzas. It would be easy enough to do this as
> >> 'chat' and place the payload in <body/>, but because the data
> >> fits structured XML so nicely, it just seemed plain wrong to
> >> overload 'chat'.
> >>
> >> So, as I'm probably going to have to do this work anyway, I
> >> wanted to get in touch with the community and see whether or not
> >> it thinks this would be a suitable case for an XEP. To be clear,
> >> I'm not suggesting we implement Raft itself in XMPP, but merely
> >> define a mechanism for transporting Raft messages within a
> >> cluster. I'm very happy to do the leg work and I'll certainly
> >> take on board all feedback that I get. If the overall vibe is
> >> positive, I'll start putting together a proto-XEP for submission
> >> to the XEP Editor.
> >
> > This sounds great, definitely something I'd be interested in seeing
> > a XEP for :)
> >
> > I would omit the message type (it defaults to 'normal') and just
> > put your XML inside the message instead of a <body/>. Unless you
> > have something transactional (request/response), in which case use
> > an <iq/>. It should be pretty straightforward, as you say.
> >
> > Finally, if this is your first XEP, some handy links:
> >
> > - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0134.html -
> > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0143.html
> >
>
> Just a note regarding XEP-0143.  It is now possible to submit
> proposals as a github Pull Request; the repository is at <
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps.git >.  It's not instantaneous (the XEP
> Editors are not paid to do this job, after all), but we try to be
> quick and responsive.
>
>
> Look forward to the protoXEP!
>
> - --
> - - m&m
>
> Matthew A. Miller
> < http://goo.gl/LK55L >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVrS0dAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1V10IAKV9gPkBrNXyq+qO5vb9fExf
> qDYd/gpLsYgQCSzxn21IJi5WdgzkallBn2fbmZPK58j7Oxf1IAkF8QPFSeLwwhar
> y3TJ+ToQPwroyhRggKO8UjJVomf9WmXiSx/eK52cwh4uz2u0j21F+MJGV2mUUXAS
> uQRKsZUiQODGprMgRr5qiP2yCaCHS+S1vZyfIP486y5iDNdmDarJEvQ2zfvRcWLW
> zod/3Aj5vptyx0T5b/KFuvJdRDZqBZHoPe+/r4pVXGj2+9xinV+zVLU4FD+RcP+M
> c2jEpmgz43iNj6kWtREWzE+WbJ76lOKgmF5UOETm65djhVCHajlP3eqD9qRXofo=
> =ngYC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150721/523ddc57/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list