-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/19/13 1:06 AM, Yusuke DOI wrote: > Peter, (sorry for multiple mail, I did wanted to split technical > details and requirement discussions) > > (2013/03/18 22:53), Peter Waher wrote: >>> Stepping back to the requirements. For example, what I need is >>> binary-only bootstrap mechanism for EXI (not like XEP-0138) >>> with least negotiation/propose of compression parameter. Does >>> your proposal cover such use case? >> >> No. This XEP covers EXI negotiation in a way compliant with >> XEP-0138. > > Ok, so I think I need to write another proposal. Would you mind if > I re-use the basic idea on 'EXI encoding part' of your proposal to > make better interoperability?
If I understand correctly, a "binary-only bootstrap mechanism for EXI" would involve using a separate port and would effecitvely define a new transport binding for XMPP (in addition to the existing bindings = TCP, BOSH, and WebSocket). Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRSCBeAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pmGMP+wZnlQQ5vgdoUB9kjPRESH23 4T1VM4H2Bx1qBOxChdiCZuFRKjRdIpNjIrYJ+AHlXA/fQ6WHNmeAXwIpVYWFoL2z DhQL7hGr+Wh10RG8+E/bhE86oP6yOyQwjoEaywvNtB2hIdeEceNc8dVWtFobstX0 UvjL/6lNrRypyKuOgbOBRnk4qZPFNoiKpbSrP/DFOMxDNd63NQYNRiOmmHZ74jGm hW7zh6EMNyqWjHA4Wy87cKxrdY9p1R9Onj+oz74VrGqk32jx4jk8Ekm4TIxRpkzc EfJEZPHUwIu/gfQnLdR5oEznrMn5ZsUCSHUF+b8mgpX5KxUcFbDiG90m8KKupva/ AoBHTH9GYQg5BMD/b8Ju01h0Z2pgBivnCzoU6woRLUj/hwdlZlgpaC2gmgjPsWJl w8uo5jA2iDGdm3QmlpepREMB/JTDhG1W0mLPHk7eKz2spphBPGjuhkS9yo3nQ/7v cd98hWXC+4mKkaZi9r97dED7BbNl5VIFp36yrof4/CqUP9XbkoVECiXDm4XRmIhm BICwTJ9tIpZLoXw2EbQcMY4wrPlq3TNaJSGcmdFeniLyhY5xIq/vfPTAbg6pzaQM qXH+xJ68jguyfoVZxm7cAy/Nrs91niyvYpxqCl8YpT+mc/PxCixp4eIJGNZcA9uW j/0PX1Zsfhqr0wb5/gma =PMur -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
