[Standards] XTLS revisited

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Mon Dec 15 16:41:14 UTC 2008

"Remko Tronçon" wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>> Would it make sense to use an in-band bytestream (XEP-0047) for the
>> tunneling part?
> Well, to be fair, I don't expect using IBB as a transport will win you
> anything, and will rather complicate things needlessly. The only part
> that looks similar to IBB is that they both use stanzas with
> base64-encoded data, but base64-encoding data is just one line of code
> ;-)

It is a bit more complicated. My TLS lib wants a socket, so I have to
connect the Base64 code with a Unix domain socket. I already had that
code for IBB and required some copy-paste for XTLS. Using IBB would be
easier (at least in my lib). But IBB adds an additional roundtrip (IBB
open). I prefer the way XTLS is now without IBB; even if it means some
duplicate code.

I now have XTLS implemeted, but without XEP-0250 offers. Right now I
accept every certificate. If someone needs a peer to test with let me


Hard work never killed anyone, but why give it a chance?

More information about the Standards mailing list