On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:42:47 +0200, Bart van Bragt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bart Matthaei wrote:
I agree that it would be really neat if google would enable S2S, but
blocking google in xmpp clients until they do isn't the way to achieve
this.
That's not what I meant. IMO blocking Google if they keep their network
closed as a last resort could be a way to put some pressure on them. But
I would _much_ prefer other solutions. My main point is that it would be
just bad if Google would only allow communication with people within the
Google network or with some (large) partners that they have agreements
with. That way we'll only have yet another network owned by a large
corporate entity. Sure, it uses XMPP but in what way would that be
better than MSN/AIM/ICQ? Sure those protocols aren't open but I can use
other ICQ/MSN clients which is the only advantage that a closed Google
Talk using XMPP would have.
No, Google permits you to connect from non-google-sanctioned clients. This
is not the case on MSN, Yahoo, or AIM. That means you can run a "Google
Talk" transport on a server. This transport would use an open protocol,
which maps surprisingly well to XMPP ;)
Remko: IMO only allowing some servers (providers) that you have a
(legal) agreement with is a Bad Thing. This way one large entity
controls who can and who can't play in the XMPP network. Sure you don't
need Google's permission to talk to jabber.org but if Google Talk ends
up having 80% of the XMPP users then it will be a very, very bad thing
to an open technology if you need their permission before you can talk
with that 80%.
XMPP is desgined to allow such a situation. If they think closed is better
than open, we'll see. They certainly seem to make a point of it, even to
their users (not just buried in some developer site), that open is better.
I can understand why they don't want just any server with open
registration connecting to their network. The only reason our networks
haven't been buried in SPIM yet, is that we don't have enough users to
make it intresting yet. Which is exactly what Google hopes to change.
This simply is one thing where "we", the Jabber community, have not done
much yet (the lack of need for it, being one of the reasons perhaps). Just
days ago we were still talking about how it's not clear right now how
TLS/SASL/Dailback should work together. Google apperently thinks TLS is
very important, they'll definatly want *some* form certificate (so SASL is
a must) to prevent an army of zombie machines to start flooding them with
SPIM, and if they want to keep it as open as you seem to want, they'll
definatly need dailback.
Since this was all "top secret" till a few hours ago, they could hardly
come on here and have a nice chat with us about it. However, the minute
their service went official, they already invited the community to think
about this problem with them.
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
