[Standards-JIG] File sharing JEP

Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo at debian.org
Sun Apr 9 09:16:35 UTC 2006


El sáb, 08-04-2006 a las 09:34 +0200, Michal Vaner (Vorner) escribió:
[...]
> >
> > I don't think a JEP-65 transport for Jingle would buy us very much.  It
> > might help as a technical/political transition to getting rid of SI, but
> > what about user-visible improvements?  I guess the question is: what can a
> > Jingle negotiation bring to File Transfer that SI cannot?
> I think there is one big problem with file transfers and Jingle - Jingle is 
> UDP. You need to have your own* way to take care of lost packets, flow 
> control and everything. You are unable to optimize the size of one packet to 
> the maximum nonfragmenting size on the whole way, since you can not operate 
> with most packet flags as a normal user. TCP does this all, but the problem 
> is, it can not be STUNed and must be relayed trough the proxy. However, I 
> think it is a bad approach to the situation using UDP for file transfers, we 
> should instead want IPv6 and direct connection access for everyone.

  Sorry, but I would like to know where in JEP-0166 (jingle) says it is
UDP. At all. More over, Jingle is "a framework for initiating and
managing peer-to-peer session", which can be used for VPN (as other
people suggested), VNC, file trasfers, ...

  Perhaps we will need to build a TCP transport, but Jingle does only
stablishes which parameters both ends need for making a connection from
one to the other.


-- 
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
   jsogo at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Esta parte del mensaje est? firmada	digitalmente
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060409/b69150ac/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list