I was curious what the definition of "constrained" is ? EXI does produce a compact representation of XML (which is good if "constrained" is meant to apply to the amount of any output XML representation)
But I think the executable code size of an EXI implementation might not be appropriate for a "light switch", "low-power sensor" or other similarly constrained memory device. But I guess it depends on the definition of "constrained" memory? (both RAM and non-volatile code space) -- especially since there may be a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 stack, HTTP module, operating system, and other code already assumed to be on the constrained device. Randy On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 3/14/13 6:50 PM, John Schneider wrote: >> Peter, >> >> Its really great to see some momentum on this! Thanks very much for >> the energy you are putting into it. This is something in which I've >> had a long-running interest. In fact, I think Peter and I first >> talked about it back in 2005 (yikes!). Although I'm not sure Peter >> was completely sold on the idea at the time (broccoli ice cream >> anyone? [1]), he was gracious enough to help us get the XMPP EXI >> use case together [2] and even started an early draft [3]. Thanks >> Peter! ;-) > > One must keep an open mind. > >> Here at work, we have incorporated EXI into various XMPP solutions >> to support our Efficient XML users (e.g., to enable XMPP on >> aircraft). So, I'm very interested in following your progress. >> Please keep me in the loop as you move forward. I'd be very happy >> to help if I can. > > Yesterday at IETF 86 I had a productive chat with Yusuke Doi on this > topic. He helped me see that, just as we've defined HTTP bindings > (BOSH / WebSocket) for web endpoints like browsers, an EXI binding > would expand the universe of XMPP usage to constrained devices of the > kind that might otherwise use protocols like CoAP. > > Although I've not yet had time to read the new EXI proposal in detail, > I shall do so as soon as possible and provide comments on the > standards@xmpp.org list. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRQvpOAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pcfMQAKPeGWf+02AZmrGff3hA+H+I > g9INO8/62pukrj7utK1BuBRkersMXLxJUm3TIWnfQuqBXe/zgbkcvms42GHvu9+R > J5/37i4Mq+lKHdI/XyPtLnn6/3YjriotGwl2ZKpvxvD4b66F0BL0jUaCoZx6jpPm > N7QNYtX51uzpU7ofWfWf/IhzXOKNgFaB4u/EVcJp4+Gu8UInnualtkeq/ZHQwEiG > SkpE36LfuCy31cXEd4Oankv30ywOwUmh2ETwzLyeDPzPfhFVdjgNkabnJr1J/H/n > 8GnZNIEgzx/hFTGUetHkhMaHQfqGAVtEjWsFIYStugQnBRS6pP/V+fEME4DEMw64 > FLf9sF8sJBSP4/e62Z8myog/eVWrYiGNjGRu8qvo+fNmD4Fn+/qhHA/SvYcN+ZXN > yqeqzAJty+A+oxduPCN+bbP93grroSjs1qmN7ybsu+bO9hJiDCs3IIsJPOBZrr9Y > uQ+an33QWIAEsPRO4VKQlFYxHmh6QRjUPTCeFyFemuD7dyLk3UBXNikMUrvcFwBa > uj0jAyC0tIf0w/Qm5RPtzVIV02On1jKRjHGoNLjEnjf0nusmdqzEZMq3mIL95PzL > g1WYu5ASmDVAzWUuwvhYYMGraAQbqrnj5+QgiaAEHulpjl43ut7FHYslD7uyPvFp > E8efql+LqrpSRCjgvZ8e > =jNUK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
