[Standards] Fwd: [TechReview] Review of XEP-0234, 0260 and 0261.
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Aug 19 02:58:48 UTC 2010
Part 1, about XEP-0234.
See also feedback from Matthew Wild after the XMPP Council meeting the
On 8/16/10 10:21 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I'm forwarding this old message to the Standards list for further
> discussion. Expect follow-ups soon.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [TechReview] Review of XEP-0234, 0260 and 0261.
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:53:14 +0200
> From: Steffen Larsen <zooldk at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: XSF Technical Review Team <techreview at xmpp.org>
> To: XSF Technical Review Team <techreview at xmpp.org>
> CC: XMPP Extension Discussion List <standards at xmpp.org>
> Hi All,
> Me, Joe and Ali have spend some time last week to review the XEPs
> described in the subject.
> Here is our summary of XEP-0234 (which I also mailed earlier to the tech
> Hash transfer in section 3. has a poor wording: "At any time, the
> hosting entity can communicate the hash of the file to the receiving
> We believe that it should be changed to "At any time (during the session
> life-time or before the session terminates)".
> That will make it more unambiguous that it can only be done in the right
> state (that is in a session that is not terminated yet).
> The <file> tag has a size attribute, but the unit is not explained
> anywhere. Its only in XEP-0096 chapter 3 it is explained that the unit
> is bytes. It is the same with the hash attribute. In XEP-0234, it is not
> visible that it is the MD5 checksum that is used as algorithm.
I've added a note that all attributes of the <file/> element are defined
in XEP-0096, not in XEP-0234.
> In XEP-0234 it does not look like that we can do resumable downloads of
> files. In XEP-0096 it looks like that there is defined an optional
> <range> element. If ranged queries are to be implemented, we could do
> that as a transport options/transport features (XEP-0260/0261). But it
> seems like that this feature is left out at present time.
IMHO the <range/> element in XEP-0096 is underspecified (in fact all of
XEP-0096 could use an update), but I think that a session-initiate
message in Jingle file transfer could include the <range/> element.
Perhaps some examples would help. I'm less confident that this belongs
at the transport layer.
> In the XEP-0234 XSD schema (chapter 9) we import from the XEP-0096
> schema. We find it a bit problematic to refer to another schema that
> might be deprecated. So we would propose to make changes to the XSD so
> that it reflect the content more explicitly.
Yes, perhaps it is problematic to define the <file/> element in XEP-0096
if we are going to deprecate that spec sometime. It might be better to
either (1) remove the <file/> definition from XEP-0096 or (2) define a
new element in XEP-0234 that is semantically equivalent to the element
from XEP-0096. I think (1) would be fine.
> In general for XEP-0260/261:
> What is the process for eliminating the older XEP-0096 and XEP-0065?
I think there is no reason to deprecate XEP-0065. Eventually the Council
will probably deprecate XEP-0096.
> will 96 go on since 234 is specific to Jingle?. It seems like 96 will be
> deprecate due to the section 1. in XEP-0234: "SI File Transfer  was
> the original XMPP protocol extension for file transfer negotiation..".
Eventually, yes. But that might be several years from now.
I'll reply separately about XEPs 260 and 261...
More information about the Standards