[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle File Transfer Description Format
nickp at bu.edu
Wed Feb 7 03:49:42 UTC 2007
Should hashes other than MD5 be supported? While it is plenty for
checking for corruption, I keep e-hearing about how MD5 is gradually
approaching becoming compromised (which would be important if, say, you
were worried about someone hijacking a file-send and sending fake files
with matching hashes).
I (tentatively) included support for multiple hash types (SHA512, SHA1,
MD5, CRC32) to describe files in my own XEP (see
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fileshare.html), should I have
instead stuck with MD5-only? At the time, I had figured that support for
multiple hashes would be a good trade off between ease of implementation
and support for multiple contexts (as far as desired security).
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Step 1 in the requested simple Jingle session examples. :-)
> For my next trick, a bytestreams transport, then an informational
> "here's how to get started and put it all together" doc.
> XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>> Title: Jingle File Transfer Description Format
>> Abstract: This document defines a content description format for
>> Jingle file transfers.
>> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-ft.html
>> The XMPP Council will decide within 7 days (or at its next meeting)
>> whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.
More information about the Standards