On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:23:24 +0100 Philipp Hancke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote: > > IMO the whole idea of piggybacking is misguided. Piggybacking means > > re-using a connection A for data that would otherwise come in B. > > The name is misleading. > > > It would be better to think about it as a generic multiplex. Then > > all virtual connections would be equal (A and B, specifically). One > > would immediately see the consequences of closing the physical > > connection (that should only be closed if all virtual connections > > are closed). > > Piggybacking is the ability to have more than one validated > combination of 'from' and 'to' on single XML stream. There was no > preference of A over B originally, 0.9 streams did not have from/to > attributes iirc. > Yes, that's only what the name suggests.... and from/to was something I first ask about... it actually seems it brings more trouble that it saves... or not? > > Keeping this as an optional feature (I believe that is a near > > consensus) > > will further simplify the most basic implementations. > > The last consensus I know of was to make passive support a MUST even: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-June/015673.html > Did I miss something? I was referring to what I heard at jdev@ some time ago, ask Peter for details (you'll have more after the council). The mail seems too old to me. AFAIK (and it's also what I understood from stpeter) backwords compatibility is now being solved by *compatibility notes* in the RFC and not by treating compatibility hacks as eternal truth :). Anyway dialback is not included in 3920bis at all. I am sure that compatibility is a critical feature... and I like the way rfc3920bis is written... with compatibility notes being clearly distinguished from other text. Pavel -- Freelance consultant and trainer in networking, communications and security. Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber, Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
