Hello, 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).
Besides, I think SCTP without UDP would be better anyway. Have a nice day -- This message has optimized support for formating. Please choose green font and black background so it looks like it should. Michal "vorner" Vaner
pgpMf6mCmk9mr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
