Re: [Standards] XMPP over Websocket vs XEP-0198
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/25/13 9:42 AM, Winfried Tilanus wrote: > On 01/25/2013 05:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > Peter, > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-01#section-3.5 > > IMHO >> that spec needs quite a bit of work, still. New editors might be >> required to get it done. However, it appears that this document >> will probably become an official work item of the XMPP WG at the >> IETF (I sent proposed charter text to the chairs last night), so >> discussion there might be appropriate at some point too. > > Do you have an overview of issues with that draft? No, but I plan to review it in detail before the Summit. :) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlECtnoACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxIKACgh5Hhf4sg0y5JmIzzUqPapCtZ oxUAoIPbNuy1P6U0GXzPiRHpVtVONow/ =J9d+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] XMPP over Websocket vs XEP-0198
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/25/2013 05:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Peter, >>> [1] >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-01#section-3.5 > >>> IMHO >>> > that spec needs quite a bit of work, still. New editors might be > required to get it done. However, it appears that this document > will probably become an official work item of the XMPP WG at the > IETF (I sent proposed charter text to the chairs last night), so > discussion there might be appropriate at some point too. Do you have an overview of issues with that draft? Winfried -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRArXaAAoJEHZ7UH0X6LdcFoMP/0FhC8/FJTa14SI20OXJE2LY kSpFBj8NQW3Kr/AKCVcXPodZY/KAClLYGVtAS7vYSgV5bRG1O8AwnfBP7GQGZYQU nUVp6qajTwoL+TomhGQvb77Zx50Sct4b+810+bcAzBkYL0UET5xpw1W+9AeFfvL3 S3uWIddwUfMbaAzP+ELfugSFIPBjK+eAgop1Lj0wdzn1OyiyaERIWDELrUKw1b53 RdsTgGxWa2LEFz+Df9BniOpUA6xV3cFZ3kdrNWirikbvH/yqROpYsSawaS6loXzO U1VMEwqDgl7PPeq89Ax31VcCs7L5xmRh20Gisw8GFKjKvFa11OhL+uweLQqFb7+K QKB4GYycuEz5D2ONB0syc0IMblTQUM8gRWizyc7Djqo3YULs9zoBmxfVfcmIudfY go/c4+Y7R33PEfwHa6LqPvJ5T04hlaLMBXA7CxZPlFtQkmp9k65tKWbL+KkvG2hl 6AUPzWvjFy1soibtltZkfjdswjuPGciKFwHyDpl1yDJtbByzXiL7vkp96BwRquLt TL1QIU368KmOuAY3N8YqjgT0wvjOhaJFvHcV1IYguurJqcCPxbV587SQK4oKOLPD Ja7fW82L2jJWMGM4/+jmzAPyYNee40t/ixvVfSxcqhbRAc+hnuYqPbfYp0THo46q 9ovCL8/gF+iavXC0XNSD =nyOL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] XMPP over Websocket vs XEP-0198
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/25/13 3:47 AM, Stefan Strigler wrote: > Hi, > > within Section 3.5[1] XMPP over Websocket states that "the closing > party MUST close the XMPP stream if it has been established". With > hindsight of page transitions within legacy web apps this might > not be wanted by the client as it might wish to resume the stream > by use (abuse?) of XEP-0198 or some other technique. > > Now my questions are: > > * Is there some other best practice known how to deal with page > transitions other than XEP-0198? * Would XEP-0198 be well suited > for this scenario? * Do we need/want to support this scenario after > all within this Draft? If not, why? > > Maybe this could be just one more topic on the summits agenda next > week. I've seen there's already quite some demand discussing > things regarding web related topics. The page transitions topic definitely needs to be explored. IIRC we had some discussion about it at Summit 12 in Portland last year, and some rough notes about it might be here: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/2012-October/001200.html As to XEP-0198 + XMPP over WebSocket, I do see a place for stream management. BOSH contains several features to make connection management easier (sid/rid), and we copied some of that into the TCP binding with XEP-0198. Because WebSocket is supposed to be "TCP for the Web", it doesn't natively include the kind of stream management features that we built into BOSH. Thus using XEP-0198 when doing XMPP over WebSocket makes sense to me. > [1] > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-01#section-3.5 IMHO > that spec needs quite a bit of work, still. New editors might be required to get it done. However, it appears that this document will probably become an official work item of the XMPP WG at the IETF (I sent proposed charter text to the chairs last night), so discussion there might be appropriate at some point too. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlECr5UACgkQNL8k5A2w/vznmgCghPoE7Y3X6syPP619C598UdlR wjMAni88wQWAiqTQ5RNgCvXocjUZn3TZ =Z4DF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[Standards] XMPP over Websocket vs XEP-0198
Hi, within Section 3.5[1] XMPP over Websocket states that "the closing party MUST close the XMPP stream if it has been established". With hindsight of page transitions within legacy web apps this might not be wanted by the client as it might wish to resume the stream by use (abuse?) of XEP-0198 or some other technique. Now my questions are: * Is there some other best practice known how to deal with page transitions other than XEP-0198? * Would XEP-0198 be well suited for this scenario? * Do we need/want to support this scenario after all within this Draft? If not, why? Maybe this could be just one more topic on the summits agenda next week. I've seen there's already quite some demand discussing things regarding web related topics. Regards, Steve [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-01#section-3.5
