Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ going back to interleaved comments - top-posting is evil ] On 3/11/13 7:26 PM, Peter Waher wrote: > Hello Peter > > Thanks for the links. We are aware of those attempts, and the IEEE > working group had also unearthed them. > > However, the proposed solution is not sufficient. That was as far as we got in 2008. > For EXI to be successfully implemented, there needs to be a > handshake where both parties agrees on a set of parameters and a > set of schemas to use. That might lead in the direction of using a separate port with a different SRV record. > Also, an interchange of schemas between parties would be very > good, so introduction of new schemas could be done without having > to update software. Even though EXI can work in a schema-less mode, > it's compression ability is best when both parties have access to > the same XML schema. Yes. We don't have a way to do that now, but we'd need it in this case. > I've on my list to create such a proposal and mail to this list. Great, I'm looking forward to it! 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRPmqxAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pSvIP/1g+jsXVSTZlO5WsjOuNlPhJ hAZXkpvNac5VfW7exPzKLoiXlBAnQ/8QfShmzQX1M/Xuye+J/WeT507JNZADcTaJ OL57izNLyFnDdL50f+2OiwUgnvcfxkOK29Cjrj+CMwF5tMf4MdnOqtAEDgr1Fjqy LIC8aMb5x+1RdepCN9sMpFqNPQYNyRkZ4CAIQNn7LbAtg95/9u/j7GexEg8gZEFI QQ3Cagz+//jkdaHGOJX/0flEmraM42pwUiqoEpoVP7TJ6IBN+OZdzjzK9DfKo6JI PQGDwHPrPe3gVqeDFxyuiNRjgZ7xRbpV4n4/we8+rcmpyklwYRBgMzE3leT+zwGj SeV67lHc1Qg0o1kQi4RUQxznvujVuqhJMPgek9ksNWB7GgwkG5ZMkfg4aXx3HV6B TKW01HNt9vurDQEaEvuR/YUN23fbQxbkHYbSti0u8hfLsOCZ9nKm7l5S/tTJK10n XjoHQUSA6i+1IwaXXEpYopxcsu88nRbPq3cqt4rcGzT7X+l2AUwSEVQ4kHo7erW9 x9RayNgSqi3ZU17gxUe3ECW93YS5XpE3KjhP7outzYSMgd20q+qRagZbT2c6oCq0 O7kaMPPAzJQ/fa0dtutZsBNG6vkmv6xEqTAqJytqxuDKpBPt4kQ6RZxC8yzndV31 HW3MsA85M/eiAp1b2ua2 =8owV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
Hello Peter Thanks for the links. We are aware of those attempts, and the IEEE working group had also unearthed them. However, the proposed solution is not sufficient. For EXI to be successfully implemented, there needs to be a handshake where both parties agrees on a set of parameters and a set of schemas to use. Also, an interchange of schemas between parties would be very good, so introduction of new schemas could be done without having to update software. Even though EXI can work in a schema-less mode, it's compression ability is best when both parties have access to the same XML schema. I've on my list to create such a proposal and mail to this list. Sincerely, Peter Waher -Original Message- From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] Sent: den 11 mars 2013 19:17 To: XMPP Standards Cc: Yusuke DOI; Peter Waher Subject: Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please be aware that we had discussions about this four years ago: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compress-exi.html http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-February/017938.html (and follow-up messages in that thread) http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-March/018185.html See also more recent discussion: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2012-March/006712.html (and follow-up messages in that thread) On 3/7/13 7:40 AM, Yusuke DOI wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Yes, for sensor networks such as one on 802.15.4, XMPP/EXI should be a > good choice (if we can implement it efficiently). Please let me join > your effort. Thanks! > > // Yusuke DOI Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA > Corp. > > > (2013-03-07 20:55), Peter Waher wrote: >> Hello Yusuke We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an >> exceptional and efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it in >> sensor networks, where RAM and packet size is an issue. We hope to, >> within our effort to create XEPs for sensor networks, to include a >> XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP communication. If you want to join us >> in this work, you're welcome. Note to XSF >> members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI XEP, >> please contact me. Sincerely, Peter Waher >> >> Från: Yusuke DOI >> mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> >> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET Till: XMPP Standards >> mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Ämne: [Standards] >> Question on valid XMPP Svara till: XMPP Standards >> mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Hi, >> >> My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] >> with XMPP. >> >> During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my >> tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem >> as described in [2]. Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far >> better to use schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and >> validation. Schema-informed EXI is for valid XML, but current spec >> does not allow validation due to UPA. Changing local schema >> (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks interoperability of >> schema-informed EXI. >> >> Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some >> (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three >> choices. >> >> 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break >> inteoperability. 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. >> This looks awkward. 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure >> XMPP community wants/hates 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ [2] >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html >> >> Regards, >> >> // Yusuke DOI >> mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> >> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. >> >> >> >> -- Hälsningar >> >> Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef >> >> Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 >> 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 >> (Malmgården) Email: >> joachim.lindb...@sust.se<mailto:joachim.lindb...@sust.se>, >> www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se> Tel +46 >> 706-442270 >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRPmYHAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pArIP/0TgL6wTndj/Lc0Xi3c5z5Yp comTxaO/iCIrgnhnvu4qYGYZS9zRDIc4QL6VZm4aDSXiu0wJBuOnS11GJN4qDTpf 8wLaehG+6gTdqNsY8lKL+vGTNVMqtBmQIOrftJ4q+N+/fip3tKSwojP8DHwwCScI 3QDj3f9m0/rtTLdllgFrlP8O7HySbqh3tyeGy7qTSJCMvdYM+EJNt5lHg9Vmjnnr iZdE9sPlhfJIWLAb2LSL/ZS921kC5C1phUPKWZOBWKvRccJwee1oOnWoJLskt1c5 pYt014eJBzrQnRbCrqJjzq8cx66vZ7l7oONInB9aqIG0i5o4x+V9Dr0mRq0chGP4 LVrwCijfoBvtHHELMmGnUlWw5YMRHca9HiBgIacMb9vo7/MfI+Gv1EVsXiDcCdjm x4uAH+8yUnV/VUS6DdG0l/uzbTyZta2zbfvXtFM8i1uoDKHIObkPeoeTIKozxN/b ksziXsoyTPqbwMNJzP+/9JD+MJEWoVT1I/v9cfHtX49n8OzBY15VNpVo8ukbPR7X Ec6sVUUQv+R3/5VZw0BSllBuI28ev874mFUQFZgRP18/ltbdWIDboq9lPgyq7QKs gwNeIneqs6IXoPpAhzzxrNnZRBdPhWul9gThLKU5RCQIj3M26BmKZTV/Jbcm/WPq OfSERCnYdBT00MR5W1bS =3LVI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please be aware that we had discussions about this four years ago: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compress-exi.html http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-February/017938.html (and follow-up messages in that thread) http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-March/018185.html See also more recent discussion: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2012-March/006712.html (and follow-up messages in that thread) On 3/7/13 7:40 AM, Yusuke DOI wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Yes, for sensor networks such as one on 802.15.4, XMPP/EXI should > be a good choice (if we can implement it efficiently). Please let > me join your effort. Thanks! > > // Yusuke DOI Corporate R&D Center, > TOSHIBA Corp. > > > (2013-03-07 20:55), Peter Waher wrote: >> Hello Yusuke We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an >> exceptional and efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it >> in sensor networks, where RAM and packet size is an issue. We >> hope to, within our effort to create XEPs for sensor networks, to >> include a XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP communication. If you >> want to join us in this work, you're welcome. Note to XSF >> members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI XEP, >> please contact me. Sincerely, Peter Waher >> >> Från: Yusuke DOI >> mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> >> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET Till: XMPP Standards >> mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Ämne: [Standards] >> Question on valid XMPP Svara till: XMPP Standards >> mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Hi, >> >> My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put >> EXI[1] with XMPP. >> >> During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from >> my tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) >> problem as described in [2]. Although EXI works with schemaless >> XML, it's far better to use schema-informed EXI in terms of >> efficiency and validation. Schema-informed EXI is for valid XML, >> but current spec does not allow validation due to UPA. Changing >> local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks interoperability >> of schema-informed EXI. >> >> Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some >> (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are >> three choices. >> >> 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break >> inteoperability. 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI >> communications. This looks awkward. 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak >> wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates 'cool' features >> of XSD 1.1. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ [2] >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html >> >> Regards, >> >> // Yusuke DOI >> mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> >> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. >> >> >> >> -- Hälsningar >> >> Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef >> >> Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 >> 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 >> (Malmgården) Email: >> joachim.lindb...@sust.se<mailto:joachim.lindb...@sust.se>, >> www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se> Tel +46 >> 706-442270 >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRPmYHAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pArIP/0TgL6wTndj/Lc0Xi3c5z5Yp comTxaO/iCIrgnhnvu4qYGYZS9zRDIc4QL6VZm4aDSXiu0wJBuOnS11GJN4qDTpf 8wLaehG+6gTdqNsY8lKL+vGTNVMqtBmQIOrftJ4q+N+/fip3tKSwojP8DHwwCScI 3QDj3f9m0/rtTLdllgFrlP8O7HySbqh3tyeGy7qTSJCMvdYM+EJNt5lHg9Vmjnnr iZdE9sPlhfJIWLAb2LSL/ZS921kC5C1phUPKWZOBWKvRccJwee1oOnWoJLskt1c5 pYt014eJBzrQnRbCrqJjzq8cx66vZ7l7oONInB9aqIG0i5o4x+V9Dr0mRq0chGP4 LVrwCijfoBvtHHELMmGnUlWw5YMRHca9HiBgIacMb9vo7/MfI+Gv1EVsXiDcCdjm x4uAH+8yUnV/VUS6DdG0l/uzbTyZta2zbfvXtFM8i1uoDKHIObkPeoeTIKozxN/b ksziXsoyTPqbwMNJzP+/9JD+MJEWoVT1I/v9cfHtX49n8OzBY15VNpVo8ukbPR7X Ec6sVUUQv+R3/5VZw0BSllBuI28ev874mFUQFZgRP18/ltbdWIDboq9lPgyq7QKs gwNeIneqs6IXoPpAhzzxrNnZRBdPhWul9gThLKU5RCQIj3M26BmKZTV/Jbcm/WPq OfSERCnYdBT00MR5W1bS =3LVI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
Are you with 802.15.4 reffering to 6lowpan networks. Then I'm also doing work in the area with SICS.se in Sweden so yes would be interesting working with that. /joachim 2013/3/7 Yusuke DOI > Dear Peter, > > Yes, for sensor networks such as one on 802.15.4, XMPP/EXI should be a > good choice (if we can implement it efficiently). Please let me join your > effort. Thanks! > > > // Yusuke DOI Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA > Corp. > > > (2013-03-07 20:55), Peter Waher wrote: > >> Hello Yusuke >> We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an exceptional and >> efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it in sensor networks, where >> RAM and packet size is an issue. We hope to, within our effort to create >> XEPs for sensor networks, to include a XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP >> communication. If you want to join us in this work, you're welcome. >> Note to XSF members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI >> XEP, please contact me. >> Sincerely, >> Peter Waher >> >> Från: Yusuke DOI > yusuke@toshiba.co.**jp >> >> >> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET >> Till: XMPP Standards >> mailto:sta**nda...@xmpp.org >> >> >> >> Ämne: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP >> Svara till: XMPP Standards mailto:sta** >> nda...@xmpp.org >> >> >> Hi, >> >> My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] with >> XMPP. >> >> During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my >> tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem as >> described in [2]. >> Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far better to use >> schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and validation. Schema-informed >> EXI is for valid XML, but current spec does not allow validation due to >> UPA. Changing local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks >> interoperability of schema-informed EXI. >> >> Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some >> (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three choices. >> >> 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break inteoperability. >> 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. This looks awkward. >> 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates >> 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ >> [2] >> http://mail.jabber.org/**pipermail/jdev/2012-June/**089069.html<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html> >> >> Regards, >> >> // Yusuke DOI mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.** >> jp >> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Hälsningar >> >> Joachim Lindborg >> Teknisk Chef >> >> Sustainable Innovation AB >> Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm >> Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) >> Email: >> joachim.lindb...@sust.se<**mailto:Joachim.lindborg@sust.**se>, >> www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se**> >> Tel +46 706-442270 >> >> > > -- Hälsningar Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) Email: joachim.lindb...@sust.se, www.sust.se Tel +46 706-442270
Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
Dear Peter, Yes, for sensor networks such as one on 802.15.4, XMPP/EXI should be a good choice (if we can implement it efficiently). Please let me join your effort. Thanks! // Yusuke DOI Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. (2013-03-07 20:55), Peter Waher wrote: Hello Yusuke We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an exceptional and efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it in sensor networks, where RAM and packet size is an issue. We hope to, within our effort to create XEPs for sensor networks, to include a XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP communication. If you want to join us in this work, you're welcome. Note to XSF members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI XEP, please contact me. Sincerely, Peter Waher Från: Yusuke DOI mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET Till: XMPP Standards mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Ämne: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP Svara till: XMPP Standards mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Hi, My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] with XMPP. During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem as described in [2]. Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far better to use schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and validation. Schema-informed EXI is for valid XML, but current spec does not allow validation due to UPA. Changing local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks interoperability of schema-informed EXI. Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three choices. 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break inteoperability. 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. This looks awkward. 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ [2] http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html Regards, // Yusuke DOI mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. -- Hälsningar Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) Email: joachim.lindb...@sust.se<mailto:joachim.lindb...@sust.se>, www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se> Tel +46 706-442270
Re: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP
Hello Yusuke We have been experimenting with EXI and find it an exceptional and efficient way to compress XML. We want to use it in sensor networks, where RAM and packet size is an issue. We hope to, within our effort to create XEPs for sensor networks, to include a XEP for EXI enablement of XMPP communication. If you want to join us in this work, you're welcome. Note to XSF members: Anybody interested in participating in such an EXI XEP, please contact me. Sincerely, Peter Waher Från: Yusuke DOI mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> Datum: 6 mars 2013 07:32:55 CET Till: XMPP Standards mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Ämne: [Standards] Question on valid XMPP Svara till: XMPP Standards mailto:standards@xmpp.org>> Hi, My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] with XMPP. During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem as described in [2]. Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far better to use schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and validation. Schema-informed EXI is for valid XML, but current spec does not allow validation due to UPA. Changing local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks interoperability of schema-informed EXI. Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three choices. 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break inteoperability. 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. This looks awkward. 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ [2] http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html Regards, // Yusuke DOI mailto:yusuke@toshiba.co.jp>> Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp. -- Hälsningar Joachim Lindborg Teknisk Chef Sustainable Innovation AB Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården) Email: joachim.lindb...@sust.se<mailto:joachim.lindb...@sust.se>, www.sust.se<http://www.sust.se> Tel +46 706-442270
[Standards] Question on valid XMPP
Hi, My name is Yusuke Doi. I'm wondering if it is possible to put EXI[1] with XMPP. During my experiment to encode some XML instances captured from my tcpdump to EXI, I have got unique particle attribution (UPA) problem as described in [2]. Although EXI works with schemaless XML, it's far better to use schema-informed EXI in terms of efficiency and validation. Schema-informed EXI is for valid XML, but current spec does not allow validation due to UPA. Changing local schema (suggested by Peter in [2]) breaks interoperability of schema-informed EXI. Is there any possible way to make a 'valid XMPP spec' with some (backword-compatible) specification update? I guess there are three choices. 1) change XMPP schema/spec to avoid UPA. This may break inteoperability. 2) use different XMPP schema for EXI communications. This looks awkward. 3) use XSD 1.1 for weak wildcard. I'm not sure XMPP community wants/hates 'cool' features of XSD 1.1. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/ [2] http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2012-June/089069.html Regards, // Yusuke DOI Corporate R&D Center, TOSHIBA Corp.
