Hi guys, Thanks for the encouragement and feedback!
I'm working on the ProtoXEP now and I think it's coming along quite nicely. I hope to be able to submit it soon. I could use some guidance on how to best approach describing this protocol. The challenge is that I want to describe a transport layer for Raft, but I don't actually want to end up trying to describe Raft itself. For example, when I have an element with a number of attributes, should I be defining and explaining those attributes? Should I be explaining different conversations that two "Raft nodes" might under different (Raft related) circumstances, even though the message structure from XMPP's point of view is the same? I guess what I'm asking is, where should I draw the line between explaining what messages are needed in XMPP to support Raft and Raft itself... Thanks in advance! Kind Regards, Peter Membrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew A. Miller" <[email protected]> To: "XMPP Standards" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 21 July, 2015 01:17:17 Subject: Re: [Standards] Initial thoughts on Raft over XMPP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 7/20/15 5:39 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 20 July 2015 at 10:11, Peter Membrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> As the subject suggests, I'm really interested in using the Raft >> consensus protocol over XMPP. I'll give you some background on >> the project I'm working on, some info on Raft and will then try >> to explain why I think XMPP is a great choice for transporting >> the raft data. It's the first time I've considered working on an >> XEP, so any constructive or critical feedback will truly be >> welcome! Also, thanks in advance for taking the time to read >> through all this. > >> I am already working on a prototype to let me do this using >> custom <message/> stanzas. It would be easy enough to do this as >> 'chat' and place the payload in <body/>, but because the data >> fits structured XML so nicely, it just seemed plain wrong to >> overload 'chat'. >> >> So, as I'm probably going to have to do this work anyway, I >> wanted to get in touch with the community and see whether or not >> it thinks this would be a suitable case for an XEP. To be clear, >> I'm not suggesting we implement Raft itself in XMPP, but merely >> define a mechanism for transporting Raft messages within a >> cluster. I'm very happy to do the leg work and I'll certainly >> take on board all feedback that I get. If the overall vibe is >> positive, I'll start putting together a proto-XEP for submission >> to the XEP Editor. > > This sounds great, definitely something I'd be interested in seeing > a XEP for :) > > I would omit the message type (it defaults to 'normal') and just > put your XML inside the message instead of a <body/>. Unless you > have something transactional (request/response), in which case use > an <iq/>. It should be pretty straightforward, as you say. > > Finally, if this is your first XEP, some handy links: > > - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0134.html - > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0143.html > Just a note regarding XEP-0143. It is now possible to submit proposals as a github Pull Request; the repository is at < https://github.com/xsf/xeps.git >. It's not instantaneous (the XEP Editors are not paid to do this job, after all), but we try to be quick and responsive. Look forward to the protoXEP! - -- - - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LK55L > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVrS0dAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1V10IAKV9gPkBrNXyq+qO5vb9fExf qDYd/gpLsYgQCSzxn21IJi5WdgzkallBn2fbmZPK58j7Oxf1IAkF8QPFSeLwwhar y3TJ+ToQPwroyhRggKO8UjJVomf9WmXiSx/eK52cwh4uz2u0j21F+MJGV2mUUXAS uQRKsZUiQODGprMgRr5qiP2yCaCHS+S1vZyfIP486y5iDNdmDarJEvQ2zfvRcWLW zod/3Aj5vptyx0T5b/KFuvJdRDZqBZHoPe+/r4pVXGj2+9xinV+zVLU4FD+RcP+M c2jEpmgz43iNj6kWtREWzE+WbJ76lOKgmF5UOETm65djhVCHajlP3eqD9qRXofo= =ngYC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
