[Standards] XEP-0234 Jingle File Transfer 0.16

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Jul 14 07:07:46 UTC 2015


While we're on the subject, is there any benefit to having a reestablish
mechanism in a more general sense? I'm thinking about the number of times I
tell colleagues that I'll call them right back - would we save much effort
in negotiation if we chose to repeat a previous session rather than create
a new one?

In this specific case, I don't see that jingle pub provides the same
semantic, without considerable effort and fiddling.
On 20 Jun 2015 13:09, "Yann Leboulanger" <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just read the version 0.16 of Jingle File Transfer XEP, and saw that
> you removed the <request> flow.
> Just to mention that it is used in Gajim to re-request the file at the
> end of a tranfer when hash was wrong.
> I don't think it's a good thing to removed a feature without a
> replacement, that's not very nice for clients to remove a feature they
> implemented.
> Please note also that this <request> thing was used by XEP-0329 that is
> now no more implementable!
>
> Is there a way to have it back in the XEP or have a replacement XEP for
> that feature?
>
> --
> Yann
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150714/4c4f999b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list