[Standards-JIG] XEP0168 - UDP Sessions - Add UDP handshake

Michal 'vorner' Vaner michal.vaner at kdemail.net
Wed Oct 11 20:58:53 UTC 2006


On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:52:15PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Chris Mullins wrote:
> > Justin Karneges Wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:12, Chris Mullins wrote:
> >>> To fix this, I would like to see an actual UDP handshake added into
> > the
> >>> protocol. This would make certain the connection is live before we
> >>> proceed and tell the user everything is up and running.
> > 
> >> This is exactly what XEP-0176 (Jingle ICE Transport) is for.
> > 
> > The problem is that XEP-0168 doesn't require ICE. It simply says, "Send
> > your IP Address" and from there you're done. There's no requirement to
> > use ICE. Past experience says a number of people will implement XEP-0168
> > in a way that doesn't actually work with NAT and Firewalls. I would like
> > to see that prevented, by having a working handshake over the new
> > channel be a requirement for completion.
> > 
> 
> The intent is that XEP-0176 (ICE) and XEP-0177 (Raw UDP) will be used
> together. Unfortunately, we can't advance XEP-0176 until the IETF's ICE
> spec has been approved.
> 
Maybe add a note into the Raw UDP (or jingle) to consider ICE instead,
if possible? (Point out the problem there) - Developers wouldn't (most
of them) do thing that would not much work on purpose. (And they do not
need any jingles and so, if they do not have NATs).

-- 
This is a terroristic email. It will explode in 10 minutes, 
if you do not close it in the meantime.

Michal "vorner" Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061011/3e9244e2/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list