[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP

Tijl Houtbeckers thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Fri Dec 13 01:16:35 UTC 2002

Matthias Wimmer <m at tthias.net> wrote on 12-12-2002 22:53:31:
>I didn't took the decision to block iib easy. E.g. if clients would 
>implement ibb to transfer emoticons or things like that inband it 
>would be okay to me (maybe I'd still not like it), but the only 
>implementation I am aware of offers IBB to the user to transfer 
>arbitrary files (and that is something I really don't like).
>If I see that most ibb implementing clients use it in a reasonable 
>way, I would remove the block again. But there is no such 
>implementation yet. I really hope that Jabber clients will improve 
>their support for file transfers. This can be done by better support 
>for proxies (http and socks), PASS and external http-helper-servers 
>(servers a user can put files on - this would also allow to have 
>offline file transfers). If a server admin does not install a proxy 
>for his users the users could use a service offered by an other Jabber 
>server. Most Jabber servers today offer their services also to users 
>of other servers. 

Did you block ibb because it what used too much or as a "pre-emptive" 
strike? I can imagine however you don't want people sending enormous 
files with it, but what more are you going to block, for example 
webservices (eg using SOAP over Jabber) can suck up a lot of bandwith...

If all known implementing clients would give a big fat warning when 
sending files over, let's say over 10KB,  would you consider turning it 
back on? We're going to be using some form of inband datatransfer to 
send ringtones, logo's etc. to mobile phones. OOB is not an option 
here, and I'd be nice if you could use any normal client to do this 
kind of stuff (without getting blocked). 

Tijl Houtbeckers
Java/J2ME/GPRS Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands

More information about the Standards mailing list