[Council] f/t Jingle

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Aug 31 12:06:23 UTC 2011

BTW, I received an email message last night about XEP-0260 from someone
who is not subscribed to any of the lists, triggered by the following
bug report:


So, at a minimum, I need to follow up on that one too.

On 8/31/11 3:10 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I'm +0 on 260 and 261 (which I think are my outstanding votes) having,
> finally, reviewed and checked that Tobias is happy with the resolution
> of his threads, although I note that 260 has a bunch of non-protocol
> normative language that may or may not be appropriate (talking about
> SHOULD use UPnP and things).
> I'm not entirely happy (but won't block on) the following:
> "A client SHOULD try the offered candidates in the order of their
> priority, from highest to lowest."
> Why is this only a SHOULD?
> "If more than one <candidate/> element is present in a
> session-initiate or session-accept, a client SHOULD wait 200ms before
> trying the next one."
> This isn't clear (to me) whether it means before trying (happy
> eyeballsish) several connections at once, or waiting 200ms after
> failure. It's also not clear to me that this is a protocol rather than
> implementation decision.
> "If the other party offered a direct connection and a proxy
> connection, its peer MAY wait a little bit longer than 200ms before
> trying the first proxy."
> I don't really know why this needs specifying explicitly, but it
> doesn't seem to do harm.
> "A client SHOULD NOT wait for a TCP timeout on connect. If it is
> unable to connect to any candidate within 5 seconds it SHOULD send a
> candidate-error to the other party."
> This seems wrong.
> The security considerations, which I was very tempted to -1 on, seem
> to be requiring that you start the file transfer before any user
> input, which seems very wrong - both on being the wrong thing to do,
> and mandating UI in the XEP. It could be that I'm misreading this, but
> if I read it this way there's a fair chance others will, and I don't
> think this is right.
> The SHOULD requirement on XTLS in both XEPs doesn't seem realistic
> (expired 2009?).
> I'd also like to remind Nathan that his votes are due, IIRC, in the
> next few hours.
> /K

Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Council mailing list