On Thu Jun 17 03:07:14 2010, Bruce Campbell wrote:
This is an odd idea that I'm mulling over as part of the creation
of a user interface (email and IM) within a limited
connectivity-but-controlled environment. Essentially, creating
connections is expensive, and both IMAP and XMPP user credentials
are the same. Think BOSH within a pre-existing IMAP stream.
I thought about that, and then went for a long walk and thought happy
thoughts until the headache and shaking went away again.
The thing is, I can't think of an environment where the overhead of
setting up a new XMPP session to the level where it's authenticated
would be sufficiently costly as to define an entirely new connection
method.
You'd be best off considering the other way around, in fact, not that
that's any less of an abomination.
A least abomination method for this would be to have a new protocol
which acted as a multiplex and single authenticator, and then you
could have that use proxy-auth to handle the connect/authenticate
cycles of both IMAP and XMPP (and others).
So far I've got a set of draft notes which amount to creating a new
IMAP capability 'XMPP', a group of client subcommands to control
XMPP connection/disconnection/multiple identities/sending stanzas,
and the facility for the server to send arbitary stanzas via
untagged responses, along with various protocol handwaving to keep
things nice and neat.
Did you say "nice"? And "neat"? Was this really in the same sentence
as the rest, which I can't quite bring myself to repeat?
Any thoughts on the concept and suggestions as to whether to raise
this as a XEP here or within the appropriate IETF group (Lemonade I
believe) ?
Lemonade has shut down; it'd be an independent draft thought the
IETF. We have no capabaility within the XSF to adequately review an
IMAP extension, whereas the IETF do have people versed in both IMAP
and XMPP.
I'll particularly enjoy Mark Crispin's response to this, although he
may initially congratulate you on an excellent, if early, April 1st
draft.
FWIW, Lemonade was faced with several suggestions on how to obviate
the need for a second connection for submission, however none were
ever met with much enthusiasm, either because it'd mean retooling
Submission to be an IMAP extension, and duplicating the existing
SMTP-based protocol, or - in similar cases to this - tunelling SMTP
through IMAP was seen as a substantial amount of complexity as well
as appallingly ugly.
I don't think this will be met with much enthusiasm either.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
