Dirk Meyer wrote: > Remko Tronçon wrote: >> Dave reminded me that it could make sense to disable compression after >> TLS, namely when TLS is doing compression itself (and it doesn't make >> sense to do compression twice). > > Compressing a TLS layer makes no sense at all. So if I want compression > (and not using TLS compression itself), I would first start TLS and > after that zlib. In that order zlib compresses XML data, the other way > around it compresses encrypted data which is much less effective.
Right. > But maybe the choices here are TLS with compression in TLS _or_ zlib and > no TLS. I don't think that's the choice. As I understand is, some libraries don't yet support native TLS compression, which is why we have XEP-0138. But eventually we won't need that. > But IMHO TLS should be mandatory Maybe someday, but not soon. We tried that for one week at jabber.org but only for c2s, not s2s. I'd love to get to the point where we require TLS across all the hops, but I don't think it will happen very soon. > which raises the question if we > need zlib compression at all. Eventually we won't need it. /psa
