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
