Subject: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport?

From: "xmpp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:41:17 -0000

#1: mention SCTP as alternative transport?
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  Peter Saint-Andre
     Type:  enhancement            |      Status:  new              
 Priority:  minor                  |   Milestone:  milestone1       
Component:  3920bis                |     Version:                   
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |    Keywords:                   
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention SCTP
 (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/1>
xmpp <http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/>

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:53:18 -0400

> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport?

Does the list stop there or will there be others?

spt

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:30 -0600

> Does the list stop there or will there be others?

I think so. XMPP over UDP sounds well-nigh impossible, and we already
have XMPP over HTTP (a.k.a. BOSH). SCTP is often adduced as an
alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning
such a possibility.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dirk Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:52:29 +0200

> alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning

Maybe XMPP over DTN bundles in the future :) We should mention that TCP
is only an example and that there may be different ways, but they may
need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy).

Dirk

-- 
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.
        -- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!)

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:37:58 -0400

> need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy).

Is it worth having a separate bindings document?

spt

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:41:16 -0600

> Is it worth having a separate bindings document?

I doubt it. IMHO it is better to leave the TCP binding in 3920bis and
then define any other bindings in other documents. Splitting things up
too much will make the concepts difficult to understand for the typical
implementer, especially given that anything but the TCP binding is off
the beaten path of XMPP development.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:34:22 +0300

>the beaten path of XMPP development.
I agree with Peter. Binding to TCP is just a small section.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:01:55 +0200

The question is whether this affects interoperability.  Can an
implementation *only* support SCTP? Do we have existing implementations?
Generally, bis documents close issues, not open them.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Turner <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:20:27 +0200

> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport?

I think we have consensus not to add any information about an SCTP
binding to RFC 3920 and to leave the definition of such a binding to a
separate specification. Therefore I shall close this issue when I again
have access to the issue tracker.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/