[Standards] Regarding XEP-0166

Todd Herman todd at apx-labs.com
Mon Jul 9 15:24:34 UTC 2012


Currently, specifically XEP-0176.  We have already implemented support for XEP-0166.  I may look into what is required to move that extension forward as well but for now I have to focus on XEP-0176 (ICE).  I am actually doing all of this for Relayed Nodes (XEP-0278) which was just deferred I think.  It is a lot of work so I have to approach it one piece at a time, which is currently ICE (XEP-0176).

I have no rush in moving anything from Draft (or deferred).  My main reason for brining that up is that while working on implementing the extensions and having questions asked and answered, the information could be very beneficial for updating the specifications and making them that much closer to being solidified.  I wasn't sure the approach for having an existing XEP updated in this manner or suggesting updates.

I will jump on the jingle list you suggested.  I didn't realize that there was a different one.  Where do you typically draw the line between the two lists (standards and jingle)?

Todd


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im] 
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:17 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Cc: Todd Herman
Subject: Re: [Standards] Regarding XEP-0166

On 7/9/12 9:03 AM, Todd Herman wrote:
> I am working on updating my C# XMPP library to support  XEP-0176.  
> Since I don’t know too much about the main subject I first read 
> through the STUN and TURN specifications.  I am currently finishing up 
> reading through the ICE specifications now and will be starting on 
> XEP-0176 very soon.

Thanks for your interest. Are you talking only about XEP-0166 (the core Jingle spec), XEP-0176, or also other specs in the Jingle suite?

> The main point of this message is that I will most likely have many 
> questions related to the XEP in the very near future.

I think it is best to ask such questions on the jingle at xmpp.org list:

http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jingle

> I also noticed
> that it is draft and wanted to know what I could do to perhaps push 
> the extension to the next step and take it out of draft.

We're not always in a hurry about pushing specs from Draft to Final. The best example is XEP-0045, which is widely implemented but has been Draft since 2002. Another is XEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams), which we just recently pushed to Final but which had been Draft since 2003.

So you can see that we like specifications to be stable and widely implemented before we go from Draft to Final. That said, if a technology meets those conditions then by all means let's consider it.

Is there a particular hurry in the case of XEP-0176?

I'll also note that the fact that you have many questions about XEP-0176 might indicate that it's not quite ready to go to Final. :)

> Also, I do have one specific related question.  Both the ICE 
> specification and XEP-0176 mention that candidates are validated by 
> sending STUN binding requests and responses.  The specifications 
> indicate that these responses and requests are sent between the 
> clients (assuming that is what the candidates refer to) rather than to 
> a STUN server.  I wanted to confirm that this is accurate and that 
> this means the clients, which are XMPP clients, would also need to be 
> able to function as STUN servers in order to interpret and respond to the requests.

I'll forward that question to the jingle@ list for discussion there.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/







More information about the Standards mailing list