[Standards-JIG] File sharing JEP

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Apr 7 17:26:32 UTC 2006

I support this approach 500%. This is the right way to go. This would give
XMPP a single session negotiation framework for different purposes. With the
base RFCs, disco, xdata, Jingle provide the last bit for making XMPP the
strong environement we are all looking for. And this is the time to do it. 

You describe how we can leverage Jingle for any peer-to-peer OOB data
stream. But there are many other usages where Jingle would make sense:
session encryption, message sessions, multimedia user chat, etc... Anything
ending up creating a negotiated session.


-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:34:48 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] File sharing JEP
To: hal at halr9000.com,	Jabber protocol discussion list
	<standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <443694A8.3030904 at jabber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hash: SHA1

/me bites the bullet

IMHO the long-term solution is to do all out-of-band media exchange
using Jingle. That would include file transfer / file sharing.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. It's not good to have two ways to do similar things, since it makes
coding clients harder. The Stream Initiation (SI) framework is quite
similar in concept to Jingle, though IMHO not as flexible.

2. We never figured out a good way to do anything but file transfer
(such as voice and video) using SI. Or at least I never figured it out.

3. I think Jingle gives us a more flexible approach than SI (voice,
video, etc.), thus enabling clients to support only one framework for
all media exchange.

4. It's possible we could define a Jingle transport method for SOCKS5
bytestreams, thus re-using JEP-0065 (though I haven't worked out the
details yet).

5. File transfer / file sharing over Jingle would be defined in such a
way that it enables the transfer of multiple files, rather than just one
file. Thus no need for something like JEP-0105, which never took off for
a variety of reasons.

6. Jingle should include all the retry semantics that people want to add
to JEP-0096 (if not, we need to define how that would work).

Or so it seems to me right now.


Hal Rottenberg wrote:
> Are you saying toss all other file transfer and negotiation JEPs in
> favor of Jingle?  Or are there multiple use cases here?
> On 4/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> IMHO it might be best to do this using Jingle. So we'd write a Jingle
> media description format for file sharing and re-use all the emerging
> Jingle semantics for negotiation and setup. You could offer that service
> only to people you trust (in a certain roster group or whatever). I've
> been meaning to work on this but haven't gotten to it yet.
> Peter

More information about the Standards mailing list