[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0198: Stream Management

JC Brand lists at opkode.com
Thu Feb 20 11:02:08 UTC 2020

On 20.02.20 11:49, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 20.02.20 11:24, JC Brand wrote:
>> On 13.02.20 21:13, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>> On 2/11/20 4:21 PM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote:
>>>> The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0198 before
>>>> presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.
>>> With the advent of WebSockets and QUIC around the corner, we shouldn't
>>> miss the opportunity to allow stream resumption over different
>>> transports (TCP, BOSH, WebSocket, QUIC, …).
>> Stream resumption over BOSH doesn't make sense since it already has it's
>> own session management tokens (SID and RID).
> Quite contrary, even tough BOSH has a SM like mechanism built-in, I
> think SM-for-BOSH is useful if you want to resume a stream previously
> established via different transport, e.g. WebSocket or RFC6120-like TCP.

BOSH has it's own timeout independent from SM, so I can imagine that
causing issues when trying to switch from BOSH to some other transport.

In a web-client, you'll run into problems even if you don't switch
transports. When you're using BOSH and then reload the page (and
reconnect with BOSH), your reconnecting to a still-running BOSH session,
there's nothing to resume SM-wise and trying to do so simply confuses
the XMPP server.

I remember lots of errors occurring server-side when I (mistakenly)
enabled SM for a BOSH connection.

These issues could probably be addressed server-side, but to day I'm not
aware of any servers that support SM over BOSH.

So, lots of extra complexity for what's IMO an edge case.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200220/35a616e0/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list