[Standards-JIG] File sharing JEP
melo at co.sapo.pt
Wed Apr 12 10:13:34 UTC 2006
On Apr 9, 2006, at 2:59 AM, Trejkaz wrote:
> On 09/04/2006, at 01:09 AM, Julien PUYDT wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
>>> IMHO it might be best to do this using Jingle.
>> Hmmm... I didn't read the jingle jeps, but there is quite a
>> difference between an audio/video stream used in a communication
>> and a file.
> There is only one difference, AFAIK. In the case of a file
> transfer, all the bytes have to come in order, whereas in the case
> of a media stream, some loss of data is acceptable.
Not quite true: all the bytes must come through. The order is not
important as bittorrent proven already.
Using jingle for file transfer makes sense from a provider
perspective, regarding relay cost and speed. But for clients, I feel
that we are reinventing the wheel (TCP in this case, and it's a big
wheel), and that we are trying to solve a problem that does not need
solving right now.
I'm all for using jingle for file transfer when it is deployed in
large numbers and the VoIP part has been used for some time to
stabilize the basic signaling protocols, but Jabber.org pushing a new
file transfer mechanism just now its very bad for all of us.
SI has it's problems, but it is here now, and it's simpler to
implement than jingle. jabber.org should recommend heavily the
implementation and deployment of si-based file transfer. Then we
would have a common protocol that all people can use.
If later a jingle "super-fast" protocol comes along cool, you'll just
use it. But not having a common basic file transfer ASAP is hurting
us all, me thinks.
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo at co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo at sapo.pt
More information about the Standards