[Standards] C2C TLS

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Tue Nov 25 14:40:42 UTC 2008

Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> IMO, that brings far too much complexity for a such a simple and
> mandatory thing like end-to-end encryption. A dependency on Jingle
> really is too much IMO. 

IMHO Jingle should be part of any client. File transfer over Jingle is
much better than the normal one. You can change the transport if it does
not work. And Jingle itself is very simple and not that hard to code. If
you want to support RTP over Jingle for a VoIP client, it is much more
complicated. Jingle itself is just negotiate a session, fire up IBB or
SOCKS5 (which you have for file transfer anyway) and that's it.

> It should be so simple to implement, be it whether a library like
> suggest for ESessions or via a very simple protocol that everybody can
> very easily implement, that even the most simple client could
> implement it. Thus have no dependencies on any complex XEP etc.

I guess the problem for Jingle is, that the XEP uses VoIP as
example. Take a look at XEP 0234 (Jingle Filetransfer). It is much
easier to understand and more similar to the Jingle security stuff.


The best things in life aren't things.

More information about the Standards mailing list