[jdev] Re: XMPP Ping method?

[Justin Karneges]

On Friday 03 November 2006 11:00 am, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:50:37AM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > On Friday 03 November 2006 8:29 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > It might make sense in rfc3920bis to make a small note that SCTP can
> > > > be used as a 'drop in' replacement for TCP as long as both hosts
> > > > supports it.
> > >
> > > Will do. I still think it's not a great idea for us to be solving
> > > things at the XMPP layer that belong at the TCP/SCTP layer...
> >
> > It's bad enough that not all environments allow monitoring of TCP acks. 
> > I don't think SCTP is any better of a recommendation.  If we want
> > something universal, we have only plain TCP and UDP, really.  Of course,
> > SCTP can be layered over UDP, but that's a hefty requirement.
> >
> > Keep in mind that we have HTTP Binding, to assist platforms with very
> > restricted environments.  It's okay to be a purist, when it is
> > reasonable, but sometimes it is better to make exceptions like this.
> >
> > In my opinion, XMPP over SCTP over UDP is too much to ask for, when just
> > an element or two in XMPP over TCP will solve our problems.
>
> However, I would like to see XMPP over SCTP. Simply because it's ability
> of multihoming (I may have written about it, I take laptop, start WiFi,
> unplug ethernet and want to be still connected).

Sure, I don't mean to discourage the general idea of XMPP over SCTP, I just 
think it is overkill for the particular problem we are discussing.

And to reply to the earlier posts: I also don't think SCTP can be reduced to a 
footnote in the XMPP-Core RFC.  More likely, it would have to be an entire 
spec of its own, similar in nature to HTTP Binding.  There's a lot to 
consider about how the various features may be used in an XMPP context, and a 
whole boatload of issues when you start talking about federation.  That said, 
I, too, would find an "SCTP Binding" spec interesting.

-Justin