W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Proposal for including EXI in XMPP

From: Rumen Kyusakov <kjussakov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:16:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPim+c5VMA9=0vtR2Za41e7Xwad=uhsB4U0oRxP87OkAZUAYGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Waher <Peter.Waher@clayster.com>
Cc: Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>, "FABLET Youenn (Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr)" <Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr>, Joachim Lindborg <joachim.lindborg@sust.se>, John Schneider <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>, "mact-usa@att.net" <mact-usa@att.net>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "public-exi@w3.org" <public-exi@w3.org>, "Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net> (sdw@lig.net)" <sdw@lig.net>, XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org>, Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
...
(incidentally send the previous email unfinished)

One more argument in favour of allowing for different ways to share the
schema definitions is to use EXI specific formats such as the EXI Schema
Definition (ESD) used by OpenEXI. That being said there should be a more
reliable way to specify the schema version in use than MD5 Hash approach.

Best regards,
Rumen





On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Rumen Kyusakov <kjussakov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Peter, all,
>
> Thank you for putting together this draft!
> Please consider few points that pop-up while I was reading it:
> 1. For very constrained devices it might be worth considering making the
> EXI options negotiation using EXI as well. This can be done by using the
> most restrictive set of options during the negotiations
> e.g. bit-packed, valuePartitionCapacity = 0 etc. I still think the
> Youenn's suggestion for reusing the EXI Options Schema document makes a
> lot of sense. EXI/XMPP specific options such as sessionWideBuffers can be
> communicated in a separate stanza. For example, by redefining the way the
> options are communicated you can exclude useful EXI extensions that are to
> be defined in the future - such as the upcoming EXI Profile specification (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-profile/) that I believe is very relevant for
> this draft.
>
> 2. The dynamic exchange of schema definitions is very interesting feature.
> I think the requirement to use plain XML Schema files to communicate the
> schemas (following from the MD5 Hash identification) is very limiting.
> Clients can choose to upload the XML Schema files using EXI as well. XML
> Schema files are just XML documents that can be encoded in EXI as well
> (prefixes preserved option set). My experience in using EXI encoded XML
> Schema files for EXI processing shows that XSD files are heavily compressed
> and faster to generate the required EXI grammars
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Peter Waher <Peter.Waher@clayster.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hello Taki****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks for your valuable input. You’re of course correct, so I’ve
>> corrected §3.2 accordingly. I’ve attached the latest version.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Sincerely,****
>>
>> Peter Waher****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Takuki Kamiya [mailto:tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com]
>> *Sent:* den 15 mars 2013 21:26
>> *To:* Peter Waher
>>
>> *Cc:* FABLET Youenn (Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr); Joachim Lindborg; John
>> Schneider; mact-usa@att.net; Peter Saint-Andre; public-exi@w3.org;
>> Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net> (sdw@lig.net); XMPP Standards; Yusuke DOI
>> *Subject:* RE: Proposal for including EXI in XMPP****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> Hi Peter,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Each EXI Body needs to always start with SD and ends with ED. SD is
>> ethereal ****
>>
>> (i.e. zero-bit), so its presence is indiscernible. On the other hand, ED
>> often ****
>>
>> carries bits (depending on EXI preservation settings in effect).
>> Therefore, ****
>>
>> stripping EXI Body grammar of them would amount to an alteration to the
>> EXI ****
>>
>> specification, which I think we should avoid. I suggest to adopt EXI body
>> as a ****
>>
>> whole.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Exerpted from the first paragraph of Section 3.2:****
>>
>> > The transmission of EXI-compressed stanzas takes the form of a sequence
>> ****
>>
>> > of EXI bodies. In order for the recipient to be able to correctly
>> interpret ****
>>
>> > these incoming EXI bodies, the sender is required to flush any pending
>> bits ****
>>
>> > at the end of the last End Element (EE) event for each stanza and then
>> send ****
>>
>> > any pending bytes available in the output buffer. Since this makes sure
>> ****
>>
>> > each EXI body starts at an even byte boundary, it permits the recipient
>> to ****
>>
>> > decompress the body into an XML stanza. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Assuming that each stanza is represented as an EXI body, it is the ED
>> event****
>>
>> (instead of EE) for which flush operation needs to occur.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Regards,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> taki****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Peter Waher [mailto:Peter.Waher@clayster.com<Peter.Waher@clayster.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2013 8:00 AM
>> *To:* Takuki Kamiya
>> *Cc:* FABLET Youenn (Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr); Joachim Lindborg; John
>> Schneider; mact-usa@att.net; Peter Saint-Andre; public-exi@w3.org;
>> Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net> (sdw@lig.net); XMPP Standards; Yusuke DOI
>> *Subject:* RE: Proposal for including EXI in XMPP****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Hello Takuki,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thank you for your valuable comments. I’ve rewritten §3.2 according to
>> the ideas you presented. I also specify when the stream ends in the same
>> section.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Would this address your comments?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’ve attached the most recent revision.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Sincerely,****
>>
>> Peter Waher****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Takuki Kamiya [mailto:tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com<tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* den 15 mars 2013 04:00
>> *To:* Peter Waher; public-exi@w3.org
>> *Cc:* Joachim Lindborg (joachim.lindborg@sust.se)
>> *Subject:* RE: Proposal for including EXI in XMPP****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Hi Peter,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thank you for sharing your XMPP work which already appear****
>>
>> to have collated many relevant points in producing an excellent****
>>
>> draft specification.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Section 3.2 in the updated version of the document describes****
>>
>> successive, back-to-back use of multiple EXI bodies. Since ****
>>
>> this usage is something EXI does not directly describe, you might ****
>>
>> want to make sure EXI bodies (except for the first EXI body ****
>>
>> which begins immediately after a EXI header) each start at a byte****
>>
>> boundary by explicitly mentioning that is the case.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Also, you may want to use the terminology “EXI body” explicitly****
>>
>> in order to avoid each sequence of (SD ... ED) to be understood ****
>>
>> as an EXI document. EXI 1.0 requires string table content to be ****
>>
>> reset for each EXI document, which is in conflict with what I think****
>>
>> you want to achieve.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> One thing that was not very clear to me was the way the recipient****
>>
>> recognizes that there is no more EXI body following one. Is there****
>>
>> going to be a stanza that represents it is the last one in the****
>>
>> communication?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Regards,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> taki****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Peter Waher [mailto:Peter.Waher@clayster.com<Peter.Waher@clayster.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:43 AM
>> *To:* public-exi@w3.org
>> *Cc:* Joachim Lindborg (joachim.lindborg@sust.se)
>> *Subject:* Proposal for including EXI in XMPP****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Hello****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We have made a first draft of a proposal for incorporating EXI into XMPP
>> networks. (See attached files.) ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Anybody with an interest in EXI & XMPP are welcome to join us in this
>> effort, please contact us. Any comments, suggestions, etc., on the contents
>> of these documents are warmly welcomed and appreciated.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Sincerely,****
>>
>> Peter Waher****
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 16:16:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:44 UTC