3 ms·

Another proprietary IM protocol (although the clients are open). Can't we all just use XMPP already?

xenator 12y ago
Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with you: - first of all, their protocol is open - XMPP is terrible protocol nowadays because of XML nature, it costly to parse, big overhead for text and awful for binary data - I heard that recently XMPP require SSL mandatory, but it wasn't from the start, as in Telegram I prefer to consider that XMPP is as good as dead for mobile and probably for any new startups besides some enterprise. I don't want to be devil's advocate, their server code is closed. They have some stinky discussions in past. But XMPP never was good protocol.
- e12e 12y ago
  > XMPP is terrible protocol nowadays because of XML nature, it costly to parse, big overhead for text and awful for binary data [citation needed] I assume you also want us to move away from html and towards a simpler, ascii-based protocol? AFAIK xmpp is already pretty simple for what it does[1]. > I heard that recently XMPP require SSL mandatory, but it wasn't from the start, as in Telegram First, so you claim XMPP has evolved to be (more/as) secure, and still think that's an argument against XMPP? Second, SSL is generally only client-server (without authentication of the client) -- IMNHO you're better off layering OTR on top of XMPP. That said, SSL, VPN, IPSEC or other trusted transport is nice to have. XMPP already has a standard for link-local messaging[2], supports other extensions, has many open and free servers and clients... I'm not saying it can't be improved on -- but you'd have to show some improvement before it made sense considering a different transport... [1] http://www.adarshr.com/papers/xmpp http://www.adarshr.com/papers/xmpp [2] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with you: - first of all, their protocol is open - XMPP is terrible protocol nowadays because of XML nature, it costly to parse, big overhead for text and awful for binary data - I heard that recently XMPP require SSL mandatory, but it wasn't from the start, as in Telegram I prefer to consider that XMPP is as good as dead for mobile and probably for any new startups besides some enterprise. I don't want to be devil's advocate, their server code is closed. They have some stinky discussions in past. But XMPP never was good protocol.

e12e 12y ago
> XMPP is terrible protocol nowadays because of XML nature, it costly to parse, big overhead for text and awful for binary data [citation needed] I assume you also want us to move away from html and towards a simpler, ascii-based protocol? AFAIK xmpp is already pretty simple for what it does[1]. > I heard that recently XMPP require SSL mandatory, but it wasn't from the start, as in Telegram First, so you claim XMPP has evolved to be (more/as) secure, and still think that's an argument against XMPP? Second, SSL is generally only client-server (without authentication of the client) -- IMNHO you're better off layering OTR on top of XMPP. That said, SSL, VPN, IPSEC or other trusted transport is nice to have. XMPP already has a standard for link-local messaging[2], supports other extensions, has many open and free servers and clients... I'm not saying it can't be improved on -- but you'd have to show some improvement before it made sense considering a different transport... [1] http://www.adarshr.com/papers/xmpp http://www.adarshr.com/papers/xmpp [2] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html