[Standards] file transfer

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 28 19:25:55 UTC 2007

Richard Dobson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Richard Dobson wrote:
>>> jingle bytestream
>>> -----
>>> When we come to implement file transfer using jingle I would suggest
>>> that rather than creating a brand new backwards incompatible file
>>> transfer protocol that we simply implement a new jingle bytestream
>>> transport just like XEP-0047 and XEP-0065 which would allow complete
>>> compatibility with the SI negotiation but still gets all the benefits a
>>> file transfer over jingle UDP would bring, i.e. better likelihood of
>>> connection.
>> I started working on such a beast a while back but never finished:
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-bytestreams.html
>> That covered XEP-0065 only, but naturally we could define a transport
>> type for IBB (XEP-0047) too.
> So would this work like XEP-0047 and XEP-0065 and just act as an extra
> stream-method to plug into the SI negotiation? Which will then allow the
> reuse of most of the file transfer and SI code in clients.

No, it would work the other way around -- it enables you to re-use your
existing SOCK5 and IBB code, but for the negotiation you'd use Jingle
instead of SI.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070828/34053a0f/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list