On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 11:03, Ruslan N. Marchenko <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am Montag, den 28.09.2020, 09:51 +0100 schrieb Dave Cridland:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 16:46, Holger Weiß <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it would be good to find a better solution.
> >
> > OK, just out of curiosity, why?
>
> I for one want that to be formalized.
> So far the formal response to that problem in the XEP is mere
> acknoledgement of the problem and its declaration to be out of scope.
> Which invites for follow-up and resolution. The de-facto state is based
> on hell lot of assumptions which are not formalized anywhere.
> Message id - not mandated. Message frame storage - not mandated. To
> store any data allowing the dedup - not mandated.
>
>
Yes, I wasn't quite right there.

I don't mean to suggest there is no solution that is worse than the
problem; any solution that is indeed "better" is clearly worthwhile.

My suggestion here is merely that so far, solutions proposed have been
worse than the problem in terms of traffic efficiency. I accept that is not
the only metric, but for me it's a pretty important one.

I readily agree that formalizing an approach to deduplication would be a
huge benefit - even if we do find ourselves with a better solution. The use
of a globally-unique message id, and so on, all seem to be areas within the
remit of the sending client, so it feels like we can solve this.


> >
> > (2) and (3) (and your un-numbered proposal) cause both an additional
> > response *and* a further '198 ack back from the client to acknowledge
> > that response, which seems dramatically ugly.
>
> It is in general off-topic but I'd expect behaving client to do
> selective 198 ack (window and time based - as per 198's recommendation)
> rather than blind _every stanza_, so that does not put major concern to
> me.


Yes, true. So it's at least one additional stanza received per send, which
is still substantially worse than a de-dup based solution.

Dave.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to