[jdev] Bytestreams fallback mechanism
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jan 2 10:58:46 CST 2008
Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Ar 28/12/2007 am 09:39, ysgrifennodd Peter Saint-Andre:
>> I'm working on the Jingle ICE-UDP spec at the moment, and I think that
>> would give you what you need (at least I think it would -- your
>> requirements are not fully clear to me).
> For most cases, we want to open a TCP-like connection. ICE-UDP would be nice,
> but we'd need to layer retransmission/reordering on top of it.
We're waiting on ICE-TCP to be finished at the IETF before we document
how that would work with Jingle. The latest version is here:
>> Well of course you can define your own protocol, but I would bet that
>> other people are interested in similar functionality, so it might be
>> more productive to see if you can use Jingle and if not what gaps we
>> need to fill in Jingle so that it would work for you.
>> For example, perhaps we need a way to more seamlessly include things
>> like SOCKS5 Bytestreams and IBB as options in a Jingle negotiation (or
>> include Jingle as an option in a stream initiation negotiation, e.g. for
>> file transfer). We talked about that back in August or September, but I
>> have not yet documented how that might work.
> Indeed, I can see a case both for including SOCKS5 and IBB in Jingle and
> including Jingle UDP in SI. I would lean towards making sure Jingle has decent
> negotiation/fallback semantics and a good set of transport options rather than
> trying to shoehorn Jingle into SI.
Agreed. I'll try to work on that soon, so that we can have a smoother
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the JDev