I remembered that I promised to give this a more thorough review on list
after voting for moving this to Experimental, since the Council had some
concerns that will need to be addressed before this would be approved to
advance to Draft (See http://logs.xmpp.org/council/131127/)
1) The primary con
On 11-12-13 16:47, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
> If both attributes have (now) fix values, why have them around anyway?
First of all: it is a SHOULD, if you have good reasons to do something
else, you can divert from it. Secondly the "(now)" is important: We can
not make changes to BOSH that bre
On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Christian Schudt wrote:
>> In theory, more connections means less latency. In practice, anything more
>> than 1 held connection (so a maximum of 2 requests) starts to violate the
>> in-order delivery rules from RFC 6120.
>
> So, another argument, to completely re
> In theory, more connections means less latency. In practice, anything more
> than 1 held connection (so a maximum of 2 requests) starts to violate the
> in-order delivery rules from RFC 6120.
So, another argument, to completely remove "hold" and "requests", as they are
always 1 and 2 in prac
On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Christian Schudt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yes, "to" should be "from" in 7.2.
>
> Concerning the xs:positiveInteger:
> http://www.w3schools.com/schema/schema_dtypes_numeric.asp
> I am not really sure if a positiveInteger is unbound and an unsignedInt is
> limited to 32bit
Well, at least in Java I found it easier, if you could just setup a threed pool
with 2 fix threads instead of a variable thread pool, because then you have to
manage the number of concurrent connections/threads manually depending on the
"requests" attribute.
So, the number two makes more sense i
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote:
> It's now three weeks since this meeting. I havn't seen a vote from Tobias on
> rayo-fax, or either of rayo-fax and rayo-cpa being published.
>
> Is there anything blocking these that I can help resolve?
Tobias okayed these on 27th November.
It's now three weeks since this meeting. I havn't seen a vote from Tobias
on rayo-fax, or either of rayo-fax and rayo-cpa being published.
Is there anything blocking these that I can help resolve?
On 20 November 2013 12:39, Kevin Smith wrote:
> FYI
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>
On 09-12-13 12:29, Dave Cridland wrote:
Hi,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-05
Interesting.
> this morning, and I wondered about its applicability to BOSH for fatal
> errors at the XEP-0124 level.
>
> I don't think XEP-0124 really goes into much detail about error
> r
On 11-12-13 08:21, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
> Why can there be more than two concurrent connections ("requests")
> anyway? Or, what's the benefit, if you use, say 5. You said "you only
> ever need two connections". This is something I wondered, too, while
> implementing it.
The only argument
On 10-12-13 22:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hi,
> Lance has sent me an updated patch, which I have applied. The diff
> between 124rc1 and 124rc2 is here:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0124/diff/1.11rc1/vs/1.11rc2
In section 7.2 now the 'hold' attribute is both defined in the list
On 10-12-13 23:48, Matt Miller wrote:
Hi,
>> - The from attribute. I think it should be: "it MUST forward the
>> identity to the client by including a 'from' attribute in a
>> response" (instead of MAY), because the core spec says:
>>> "For response stream headers in both client-to-server and
On 10-12-13 23:46, Justin Karneges wrote:
Hi Justin,
> I'm curious, what's the rationale for the flip-flopping design? It seems
> to me that we could have just used a long-polling loop for receiving
> data, and then a normal request/response whenever we need to send data.
> Not suggesting a chang
On 10-12-13 22:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hi,
> Lance has sent me an updated patch, which I have applied. The diff
> between 124rc1 and 124rc2 is here:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0124/diff/1.11rc1/vs/1.11rc2
Thank you, Lance & Peter
Winfried
Yes, it is better now.
-Teemu
2013/12/10 Peter Waher :
> Hello Teemu
>
> Thanks for the feedback. The description in §7.3.2 was perhaps a bit
> minimalistic. I extended it as follows:
>
> Event messages could be published using Publish-Subscribe. Unless there's
> absolute control of who can sub
15 matches
Mail list logo
