Matthias Wimmer wrote:
Philipp Hancke schrieb:Most of the complexity of piggybacking must be implemented on the originating server. There are (lots of) pitfalls when deciding whether to use piggybacking on 1.0 streams which are encrypted by TLS or authenticated by SASL, etc. Yet, as the spec does not mandate that you MUST reuse a connection, you don't have to implement 'active' piggybacking.What about discouraging active usage ("you don't want to implement that") while keeping 'passive' support (on the receiving server) for backward compability?I would not like to see active piggybacking discouraged. But maybe it would really be a good idea to make passive support a MUST (should not be hard to implement) while active support could get downgreaded from SHOULD to MAY.
It's worth considering. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
