[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle HTTP File Transfer

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Feb 13 17:39:59 UTC 2007

JD Conley wrote:
>>> How is this related to jingle ?
>>> Looks more like a customization to oob ... we could actually fold
>>> the listing/preview into oob (or an extension) such that they are
>>> relevant to other modes of transfer too, not just http.
>> Because it's not really HTTP.  It's using HTTP syntax over a pseudo-
>> TCP connection atop Jingle UDP, as I understand it.
> OOOOOOOOH. This makes it much more interesting. It wasn't apparent to me
> in the spec as it sits today. :)

I think that in XEP-0166 we need to define two kinds of transport, 
reliable and lossy (or whatever the right terms are). Then in the spec 
for each content description format (or content type or whatever) we 
need to say "you need to send this over a [lossy|reliable] transport" so 
that implementors know what technologies to use. Then if we define ways 
to do Jingle over TCP (e.g., SOCKS5 Bytestreams) or Reliable UDP (RFC 
1151) or "PseudoTCP", those would all be reliable transports, whereas 
UDP would be lossy.


Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070213/4af3322e/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list