Subject: Re: [Simple] XMPP vs SIMPLE

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:31:19 +0100

On Wed Oct  1 00:06:54 2008, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> I might throw in a bit of heresy here too.

I see your heresy and raise you anathema.

> XMPP over BOSH works just great through my corporate firewall and
> web-proxy and the IS guys are none-the-wiser. If I were to move to  
> SIP,
> well.....

... then you'd use SIP over BOSH?

BOSH isn't - or isn't meant to be - XMPP specific, so there's  
hopefully no reason at all that SIP/SIMPLE couldn't operate over BOSH  
just as it does over TCP.

There's a [email-masked] list active at present which would benefit  
hugely from non-XMPP review of BOSH, and I think I'm safe in saying  
that the XSF would welcome involvement from people wishing to deploy  
BOSH in a wider scenario than just XMPP.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:37:27 -0600

Dave Cridland wrote:
>> web-proxy and the IS guys are none-the-wiser. If I were to move to SIP,
>> well.....
> 
> BOSH isn't - or isn't meant to be - XMPP specific, so there's hopefully
> no reason at all that SIP/SIMPLE couldn't operate over BOSH just as it
> does over TCP.

True. I'd be happy to work with folks on that if there's interest.

> hugely from non-XMPP review of BOSH, and I think I'm safe in saying that
> the XSF would welcome involvement from people wishing to deploy BOSH in
> a wider scenario than just XMPP.

In fact we're holding a meeting about BOSH at 19:00 UTC today (2.5 hours
from now) in the groupchat room at <xmpp:[email-masked]> in
case anyone wants to join. Mostly we'll be discussing some minor spec
modifications we're working on during the current clean-up phase.

The spec authors have also bandied about the idea of pursuing
standardization of BOSH within the IETF, but I think that won't happen
anytime soon given that said authors don't have a lot of spare cycles at
the moment.

Peter

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

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:08:06 -0400

Not to be crass, but isn't BOSH kind of like what RFC 3093 describes?
--Richard