hi Justin,
Justin Karneges wrote:
On Monday 15 June 2009 12:53:35 Philipp Hancke wrote:
XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
[snip]
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Session resumption is only explained for c2s. Can s2s explicitly be
declared out-of-scope due to possible interactions with multiplexing?
Are you suggesting that we should not have s2s session resumption, but you're
okay with s2s acking?
I just don't see yet what exactly session resumption means in the s2s
context. s2s acking might help, although I think that s2s connections
are already far more reliable than it is rumored. The main problem there
is imo overly aggressive use of stream errors.
I think we do want session resumption over s2s.
What interactions are a problem?
For tls multiplexing: yes - as it may save lots of certificate
exchanges. But there is no spec for that yet, just a requirements draft.
Just keep the state, whatever it is.
The 'whatever' is the problem. Actually, I think it is just the list of
domains authorized to send/receive for the stream.
philipp
