[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: HTTP File Upload

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Thu Jul 30 10:06:18 UTC 2015


On 30/07/2015 11:35, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200
> Goffi <goffi at goffi.org> wrote:

> What is the point in implementing file transfer protocol which will not
> work in all cases (MUC, offline, etc)? Why a developer would need
> proxy65 if it's not MUC friendly? I really see no point.

why wouldn't file transfer work offline or with MUC ? We just need a way 
to request a file with an uri.

>
>> Beside the risk of losing the url that I have already mentioned, HTTP
>> give  no advantage over Socks5, and doesn't do NAT traversal as
>> Jingle can do, and it's an other whole different server to maintain.
>
> There is a clear advantage over Socks5: MUC and offline support.
> And there is no NAT traversal problem for HTTP as far as I'm concerned.

jid auth validation is a clear big advantage over random url.

> Jingle adoption? It has been 10 years left. Where is it?
> Should we wait 10 more years?

jingle is adopted in several clients as far as I know: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)

Not sure if FT is available everywhere though.


Anyway, I agree that a first good step would be to deprecate XEP-0096, 
and I have already expressed my opinion, if HTTP upload is validated 
I'll implement it.

Goffi



More information about the Standards mailing list