[JDEV] Routes, etc..

[Steven Wagner]

Why?  They get to be part of history!!!  I wish I could program, and if I could
... this would be exactly the type of project I would want to be in.
Yeah, it is going to be tons of work.  But honestly, I wish I could be in their
shoes.  Maybe if I work hard enough...  :)  Atleast I can participate in the
discussions.

Steven

Waleed Abdulla wrote:

> Thomas,
>     That's good reasoning. I guess I agree with that. I just feel sorry for
> the server developers :)
>
> waleed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Charron <tcharron at ductape.net>
> To: jdev at jabber.org <jdev at jabber.org>
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] Routes, etc..
>
> >Quoting Waleed Abdulla <WaleedKA at emirates.net.ae>:
> >> In fact I think things are getting out of hand. Maybe I'm missing
> something
> >> here!! Hope, someone can clarify it to me.    DO WE REALLY NEED THE
> ROUTE?
> >
> >  Yes.  It solves an immediate problem that we have, and takes care of some
> >longer term issues.
> >
> >>      I mean, all these tags and attributes added with each message will
> >> only
> >> make things complex for the servers. I know route info is useful in many
> >> cases, but it shouldn't be sent with each message. It should only be sent
> >> in
> >> a special type of message used to analyze the route (this is how it's
> done
> >> in IP).
> >
> >  This data will also be able to be used to handle spoofing issues, which,
> IMHO
> >are a major concern.  Once we antispood enable the systems, the route
> tracing
> >data will be needed.  Now, the client doesn't need to SUPPORT it, and the
> >clients don;t even have to read the tag if they don't want to, so it's
> really
> >not expanding the complexity of the client.  Unless, of course, they want
> to
> >send timezone data along with the message.. ;-P
> >
> >>      Also, I don't see how the route info can prevent spam. You can't
> >> filter
> >> all messages coming through route X just because someone using that route
> >> is
> >> sending spam.
> >
> >  Becouse we can perform reverse lookups on the actual trace.  We could, if
> we
> >wanted to make things 100% secure, simply ask a transport if they did
> indeed
> >send this message, and, in a way, validate the data.  We could also
> implement a
> >signature that the servers could use that could validate the routing
> entries..
> >
> >>     I vote for simplicity: The sender's client stamps the message and
> >> that's
> >> it.
> >
> >  That's all the client needs to do.  This is all server enabling stuff,
> and,
> >network enabling stuff.  The clients CAN just ignore the tag, and the
> sending
> >client merely timestamps a node entry within the route tag..
> >
> >>     Did I say something wrong? :)
> >
> >  Nope, it's a good point that we not complicate the protocol, but in order
> for
> >Jabber to become an industrial strength communications protocol, we need
> >routing headers, just like email does..
> >
> >---
> >Thomas Charron
> ><< Wanted: One decent sig >>
> ><< Preferably litle used  >>
> ><< and stored in garage.  ?>>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >jdev mailing list
> >jdev at jabber.org
> >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev