On Thu Sep 4 15:30:53 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Pedro Melo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure but as a server admin I would not admit a client negotiating
a larger
stanza than my own C2S or S2S limits.
Sorry - I'm jumping in mid-thread again, but I don't remember
seeing
this discussed.
If stanza sizes are a stream feature, what's the work flow where
one
server wants to s2s with another server with a lower stanza size
(given that its clients could be sending full-size stanzas)?
Gosh, do we really need all this complexity? Negotiating per-user
limits seems unnecessary to me.
Not per-user. Kevin means, I think:
C1 <--C2S:MTU=1000--> S1 <--S2S:MTU=800--> S2 <--S2C:MTU=500--> C2
All C1 knows is that a stanza is allowed to be 1000. S1 thinks it can
be 800. How does C1 decide that to send to C2, it needs to send an
MTU of 500? Or at least, how does it do this without PTMU, which'd
suck quite a bit?
And two questions of my own:
What is the optimal size for a stanza?
Why doesn't it depend on contention of the XML stream?
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
