[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle File Transfer Description Format

Nick Parker 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.
> /psa
> 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 mailing list