Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
On 3/1/09 5:31 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote: Dave Cridland wrote: On Sun Mar 1 09:45:12 2009, Dirk Meyer wrote: I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. Okay, so I look forward to your document explaining the security implications of deliberately introducing a man in the middle. ;-) Seriously, what does such an architecture gain you? It was just an idea. But reading all the answers here, I guess I do not need it. So ignore my last mail. :) I'd be OK with removing this. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: This sounds like another reason why multiple binds are just overcomplicating the protocol. Additions like this to core cause unforseen issues like this. Who wants this, anyway, and why is it going into core? I was about to ask the same thing. -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: f...@jabber.bluendo.com
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
Dave Cridland wrote: On Sat Feb 28 19:49:51 2009, Justin Karneges wrote: Given that you can bind multiple resources in a single XMPP-Core session, it probably makes more sense to keep the session management before binding. If you resume a session, then all resources are resumed. This also means that the session management id has a 1-to-many relationship with full JIDs. This sounds like another reason why multiple binds are just overcomplicating the protocol. Additions like this to core cause unforseen issues like this. Who wants this, anyway, and why is it going into core? /me raises his hand I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. Dirk -- This signature is temporarily under construction
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
Hello , Dirk Meyer wrote: I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. The role of the proxy would be to open the needed connection as well. There is no real need to risk adding this overcomplex case in the protocol itself. -- Mickaël Rémond http://www.process-one.net/
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Dirk Meyer dme...@tzi.de wrote: I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. Besides the fact that it seems overcomplicated, I'm not sure that for an home network the approach same jid, multiple resources is the correct one. Multiple resources are sometimes confusing and cause problems in message / packet delivery, so I'd avoid any action for extending their use. The only use of resources I'm a fan of is for allowing simultaneous connections of the same user from different devices. In these cases I prefer at least three possible alternate approaches: - trivial, but effective: give a jid to any device (the TV set is not the same thing that your alarm: they have distinct roles and perhaps also authorized users and contact lists) - in you really want to put all together use different nodes for appending commands - use an home server and talk to the world with s2s connections (sooner or later we will have the challenge of handling hundreds of thousands of s2s connection, so let's face it! ;)) bye -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: f...@jabber.bluendo.com
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
On Sun Mar 1 09:45:12 2009, Dirk Meyer wrote: I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. Okay, so I look forward to your document explaining the security implications of deliberately introducing a man in the middle. ;-) Seriously, what does such an architecture gain you? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] Multiple binds in XMPP-CORE
Dave Cridland wrote: On Sun Mar 1 09:45:12 2009, Dirk Meyer wrote: I'm thinking of maybe having a proxy in the home network. All local devices connect to the proxy and the proxy relays everything to the server. In that case the proxy registers all resources from its clients to the server. Maybe it is a stupid idea, maybe not. Okay, so I look forward to your document explaining the security implications of deliberately introducing a man in the middle. ;-) Seriously, what does such an architecture gain you? It was just an idea. But reading all the answers here, I guess I do not need it. So ignore my last mail. :) Dirk -- Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.
