Therefore we would need a XMPP-over-Jingle XEP. ;)
On 9/5/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathan Chayce Dickinson wrote: > > Has anyone thought of using end-to-end compression? Look at the > > following example: > > > > john-->myserver.org-->hisserver.org-->fred > > > > Now if we look at what happens when a message is sent: > > > > john-->compress-->myserver.org-->decompress-->interpret--> > > compress-->hisserver.org-->decompress-->interpret-->compress--> > > fred-->decompress > > > > As opposed to (with e2e compression): > > > > john-->compress-->myserver.org-->interpret-->hisserver.org--> > > interpret-->fred-->decompress > > > > Obviously only the payload would be compressed, the stanza would > > need to stay intact. Much simpler algorithms could then be used on the > > servers that explicitly deal with compressing XML efficiently. > > > > I know this has the potential to be a terrible idea... > > Not necessarily. But if people really need this, it seems better to > negotiate a direct TCP connection between the two entities (via Jingle), > encrypt that connection using TLS, agree to compress it using TLS or > XEP-0138 compression, and then exchange whatever data is desired over > that connection. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > >
