On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:05, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Matthew A. Miller > <linuxw...@outer-planes.net> wrote: > If a server is sending (in)frequent keepalives, and the client knows it > should have them (more) less, then this protocol allows for that to be > opted-in on a per-connection basis. > > Both servers and clients should use as infrequent keepalives as their network > and local network policy allows, and the other side shouldn't need to ask the > other side to send keepalives *more* frequently. >
As I said before, "Your Milage May Vary". Many of the networks I deal with an certain keepalive frequencies are good for one set of conditions but not another. > It almost seems you're suggesting a service should effectively run a separate > connection manager for each variant of device/platform/network/solar > activity/phase of moon/etc. That doesn't sound very scalable to me. > > (I said nothing of the sort.) > Then my apologies. > Sending at the same rate usually means each end will detect a stale > connection at roughly the same time. That's a Good Thing™. > > I don't see any significant problem if one side detects a disconnection more > quickly than the other; it's going to happen anyway. With any reasonable > keepalive interval, they're likely to be many minutes apart anyhow, and the > common causes of disconnections are always going to be asymmetric (losing a > WiFi/mobile connection; a PC crashing). > There are architectures where knowing sooner can improve > As Ben stated, it's an optional feature; if you don't want it, don't use it. > > "Add everything under the moon; it's okay since it's all optional" is no sane > development strategy. > I would agree adding something just for adding's sake is not sane. I don't think this is one of those cases. Maybe we can agree to disagree. > Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "stalled". XEPs -0124 and -0206 are > DRAFT, updated with implementation experience. Are you suggesting we should > progress them to FINAL, or do you have a specific set of problems that need > immediate attention? > > I gave a detailed, specific list of feedback several months ago. I received > no (editorial) reply. > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/bosh/2011-May/000380.html > Thank you for the reference. I don't regularly monitor the more focused lists. I'll read it through and try to respond. - m&m <http://goo.gl/voEzk>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
