On Wednesday 17 June 2009 12:47:49 Philipp Hancke wrote: > Justin Karneges wrote: > > Are you suggesting that we should not have s2s session resumption, but > > you're okay with s2s acking? > > I just don't see yet what exactly session resumption means in the s2s > context. s2s acking might help, although I think that s2s connections > are already far more reliable than it is rumored. The main problem there > is imo overly aggressive use of stream errors.
True, s2s is generally more reliable than c2s. Most c2s problems have to do with wi-fi or other dodgy internet connections, or roaming clients. In contrast, servers usually stay put and have good network connections. I would imagine that most s2s problems are due to server upgrades/modifications or failures: someone changes their DNS, reboots their server, power goes out, etc. I'll admit that session resumption after a power failure may be a lot to ask for, but it's surely not impossible for those that want to try. There's also the race condition of a server closing down an idle s2s connection just as the peer sends it a stanza. So at least this could be solved by session resumption, though it's probably a rare problem to begin with. > > Just keep the state, whatever it is. > > The 'whatever' is the problem. Actually, I think it is just the list of > domains authorized to send/receive for the stream. It just might be that simple, hopefully. :) I think XEP-198 should be kept in mind when designing the multiplexing stuff, and we can talk about this again if it turns out to be really difficult. -Justin
