We would like to see another attribute on the <enabled/> element that tells you where to reconnect if you get disconnected. If you're using a load balancer in front of a large number of front-end boxes, getting back to the same one (instead of getting load balanced again) would be a nice way to find the session state that you need in order to resume.
On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the > status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly > come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198. > > Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion > thread about this spec: > > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html > > I see two main points... > > 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation > feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here: > > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html > > I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be > applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from > my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally. > > 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule > (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example, > Matthew Wild wrote: > > I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based > algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout > handshake... > > IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course > here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless > I'm missing something obvious. > > Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198? > > Peter -- Joe Hildebrand
