-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/5/09 9:58 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre schrieb: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 5/5/09 12:38 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> Do you mean: when does an application decide that it would like to >>>> request multiplexing for a given domain (rather than opening a new XML >>>> stream)? >>> yes. Rather than opening a new TCP connection actually. >> >> Correct. Isn't that up to the implementation or deployment? > > Server implementors might come up with their own interpretations of > "subdomain" and ignore DNS unless you specify it properly ;-)
I think that rfc3920bis doesn't even use the word subdomain anymore. >>>>>>>> * The multiplexing method must be backwards-compatible with >>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>> server-to-server connection methods. >>>>>>>> * Each party to a server-to-server communication must be >>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>> determine if the other party supports multiplexing. >>>>>>> unidirectional or bidirectional s2s for this? For bidi we need a >>>>>>> reverse-stream:features feature anyway. >>>>>> I think this should make the stream bidirectional. >>>>> If it is bidirectional, who can add new domains? But that is probably >>>>> digging too deep already :-) >>>> I would think that either side can add domains (if adding domains has >>>> been negotiated). >>> Might result in race conditions. One way to avoid that is a protocol >>> where one side asks the other side to add the domain. Not that >>> difficult to solve. >> >> What are the race conditions? I can add sending domains for my side and >> you can add sending domains for your side. Now I suppose that if you try > > What about adding receiving domains? I hadn't considered that. > Suppose I have domains A, B and you have X and we already have a > stream established with domains A and X. If the stream is bidirectional, > either of us could decide that he wants to open a "channel" for B, > because I want to send as B or you want me to receive as B (for whatever > reasons). The concept of "you want me to receive as B" strikes me as weird. Do we need that? >> to add foo.com as a sending domain for you, and I try to add foo.com as >> a sending domain for me, we have a problem. But presumably only one of >> us will have appropriate credentials to send for foo.com, at least in >> the typical s2s scenario (things might be different inside a cloud). > > You make "cloud" sound like "Pandora's box". Isn't it? :) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoAZJ4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzyNwCfVDEfELiHdPmpKAZd1WYZDbFY pJwAn3nRlcSr2/GkGo2gENdUNeKiWU+0 =OqD2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
