[Standards] hash agility in file transfer
dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 16 07:51:09 UTC 2011
On Wed Jun 15 20:51:36 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> How is support for each function discovered?
Your point being that we tend to express features as URIs, of course.
And it's a good one. But then, I wonder if we want to say:
"I support Jingle FT with universal hashing, and I support Foo with
universal hashing, and the hashes I support are X, Y, and Z, with a
preference for Z."
Or do we want to say:
"I support Jingle FT with hashes X, Y, and Z. I support Foo with Y,
If we can decide which we want to express - and of course these have
implications, and we may be capable of supporting both, if we so
choose - then picking how to express them is fairly trivial. (And the
kind of discussion that everyone can pitch in on, of course).
My main concern is to leverage the IANA hash names, so we don't have
to duplicate that work. (Of course, the W3C turn out to have already
duplicated that work, with their very own, Invented Here™, list)
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards