[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle File Transfer Description Format
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Feb 7 16:07:36 UTC 2007
Remko Tronçon wrote:
>> For my next trick, a bytestreams transport, then an informational
>> "here's how to get started and put it all together" doc.
> A couple of questions:
> - How about a one-directional HTTP-like transport (like Google uses)
> to transfer the files?
That's a possibility. Though their HTTP over PseudoTCP over UDP stuff
scares me a bit. :-)
> Would this more restrictive form be easier to
> implement than SOCKS5 bytestreams ?
A SOCKS5 bytestream can be used in one direction or two, no? For file
transfer you'd send in only one direction.
> - How about the relation between content types and transports? For
> example, with file transfer, it doesn't make sense to use unreliable
> transports like raw UDP. For VoIP, you want bidirectional transports,
> so a protocol like HTTP would be unsuited, unless you specify that you
> want both sides to open a HTTP connection to the other. Should these
> things be specified in the description format spec? Should an
> enumeration of suitable transport types be part of a description spec,
> or can you specify just 'types' of transports that are suitable? Which
> types do you define?
I agree it would be helpful to tie the content description formats and
transports together a bit more.
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards