[Standards] XTLS revisited

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Dec 15 19:39:41 UTC 2008

On Mon Dec 15 17:16:19 2008, Dirk Meyer wrote:
> Yes. The question is: what do we want? Jingle-based allows direct
> connections with the cost of many additional roundtrips: while XTLS  
> only
> needs 3 roundtrips, Jingle XML streams need at least 7, maybe more
> depending on the transport.

Interesting - yes, you've got one RTT for XTLS negotiation, whereas  
it's 3 or so for Jingle (I thought - given that you're saying 3 vs 7  
I might well have missed one).

And I agree that's an issue we should be addressing, since it'll  
affect not only encryption, but file transfer, too.

Am I the only one who has alarm bells ringing when we're told that  
our flagship protocol for negotiating end-to-end streams isn't  
suitable for negotiating end-to-end streams?

>  And it is the question of work for the
> developer: if you have Jingle and link-local support, Jingle XML  
> streams
> is as simple as it can get. But if you don't have these, XTLS is  
> much
> easier.
Easier, but not by much - I think we could do well revisiting how  
Jingle and IBB interact, since it could be heavily streamlined in  
this case. If Jingle is too complex to consider for the simple cases  
like file transfer and encrypted streams, then it is broken, and we  
should address it *now*, while it's in Last Call.

> I'm not sure what's better.

I'm sure what *ought* to be better.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

More information about the Standards mailing list