[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

[Rachel Blackman]

> Rachel Blackman wrote:
>> I personally believe that clients /should/ have a recommended set  
>> of features they need to implement
>
> There are already, called "Protocol Suites":
>  XEP-0073 Basic IM Protocol Suite
>  XEP-0117 Intermediate IM Protocol Suite
>
> File transfer is in the 2nd one.

Yes, those were the result of the 2005 (as opposed to 2004) debate on  
the topic. ;)

My point is that XEPs are, somewhat by definition, more like RFCs;  
they go through revision, and then become (theoretically) a static  
entity, to be replaced at a later date.  XEP-0117 is a draft,  
standards-track document that says stream-profile, S5B and IBB is the  
proper way to do file transfers.  With Jingle-FT, do we now deprecate  
stream-profile, S5B and IBB, redo XEP-0117 and say that Jingle-FT is  
the right way to do things?  (Which then adds XEP-0166 to the  
intermediate profile, and requires all clients to do Jingle-FT for  
their file transfers.)  Or do we just make a new XEP with the new  
file transfer, which replaces XEP-0117 and specifies using Jingle-FT?

People who implemented XEP-0117 and did the old file transfer... if  
there's a new one, are they still 'Intermediate IM Client'  
compliant?  Or are they just 'XEP-0117 compliant' and newer folks are  
'XEP-whatever compliant'?  Because suddenly we have a situation where  
someone can be listed as 'Intermediate IM Client' compliant on their  
site, and still not be able to file-transfer with other Intermediate  
IM Client compliant clients (if Intermediate is replaced with one  
suggesting Jingle-FT).

This was the reason Julian and I were pushing for a yearly list of  
standards and a certification set, so that you could say basically  
'XMPP Intermediate Client 2006 Certified' or whatever.  Keeps  
confusion down, and keeps the set of standards current. ;)

Fair enough, right now XEP-0117 is the Word, and the Word is to  
implement stream-profile; that's fine, but we're talking about the  
fact that Google's introducing an entirely new, completely  
incompatible file transfer.  And we have to recognize both that  
Google is not going to be able to file-transfer with any other  
clients, nor will any other clients be able to file-transfer with  
Google, until this is resolved.  And as was noted, ironically enough,  
the original reason standards came up was because people didn't all  
speak the same file transfer standard; some used DTCP, some used  
iq:oob, and some used stream-profiles. ;)

For the record, I am NOT saying that XEP-0117 isn't a good thing.   
Nor am I suggesting that everything needs to be solved right this  
instant!  I am just pointing out that there's still a can of  
potential worms, mostly in response to stpeter's comment that he  
hoped having a new second stream specification didn't create  
additional problems (which I think it potentially does), and to  
people suggesting that Jingle-FT should replace the old file- 
transfer, and Jingle replace stream-profiles entirely.

None of the problems are insurmountable; I just think we should pause  
and consider.  So, consider me standing by the side of the road,  
waving a sign saying 'Warning, it's dark ahead and the bridge may be  
out, we might want to sit down and consult the map sometime in the  
next couple of miles.'

Having dutifully waved said sign vehemently for a few hours, I will  
now proceed to sit down and shut up.

For the record, all hypotheticals aside, I'm going to take the  
coward's way out and implement both file transfers down the road, as  
soon as we see how Jingle-FT works.  This will ensure I actually  
stand a reasonable chance of talking to everyone.  I'm just saying,  
from a general protocol standpoint, I'm feeling a touch of deja vu  
here. ;)

-- 
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillian.cc/