[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle RTP Sessions)

2011-06-09 Thread XMPP Extensions Editor
Version 0.4 of XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle RTP Sessions) has been released.

Abstract: This document describes implementation considerations related to 
voice and video codecs for use in Jingle RTP sessions.

Changelog: Recommended G.711 as mandatory-to-implement for audio. (psa)

Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0266/diff/0.3/vs/0.4

URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0266.html



Re: [Standards] hash agility in file transfer

2011-06-09 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/1/11 4:55 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
 Last year we had some discussions about hash agility in file transfer,
 as a result of which I made an interim version of XEP-0096:

 http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0096/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc1

 However, it seems that the XMPP Council never considered publication of
 that version. Do folks on the list think we need to do anything more
 than what's at that diff?

 (And yes, we might need to look at hash agility in other extensions,
 too, but we started with file transfer...)

 Peter

 
 This way of going about hash agility has the same issue as the entity
 caps hash's agility. You can only serve one hash, and you have no idea
 what hashes the recipient supports. Senders would forever be stuck
 with sending MD5, because doing otherwise will not be interoperable
 with existing recipients, unless all clients were updated. The interop
 failure case is quite severe, with the user possibly getting a prompt
 that the transferred file is corrupted, data getting auto-discarded,
 etc.
 
 A simple solution is to use tags instead of attributes:
 hash algo=md5552da749930852c69ae5d2141d3766b1/hash
 
 This lets clients which wish to use a stronger hash interop nicely
 with clients which only support MD5. Tags also allow specifying
 additional meta-data via attributes, and complex structured data which
 is more than just a hex string.
 
 But if we go with tags, do we even need to specify that? We can always
 add tags later in new namespaces, even defined in new XEPs, e.g.
 hash xmlns=new sha1 xmlns...hash
 or
 sha1 xmlns=new XEP-0096 namespace, or even the existing namespace,
 since the updated protocol is fully backwards compatible.../sha1

Waqas, I think you're right that we want separate elements, not
attributes. However, I think that's a breaking change to XEP-0096. Given
that we're moving away from XEP-0096 anyway, I think the best path
forward is to define a new format for XEP-0234, and make that new format
more extensible (or at least explicitly extensible).

Peter

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





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Standards] NEW: XEP-0298 (Delivering Conference Information to Jingle Participants (Coin))

2011-06-09 Thread XMPP Extensions Editor
Version 0.1 of XEP-0298 (Delivering Conference Information to Jingle 
Participants (Coin)) has been released.

Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP extension for tightly coupled
  conference calls. It allows users who participate in multiparty Jingle
  calls via a focus agent (mixer) to retrieve information and receive
  notifications about the state of the call and the other participants.
  This extension is also meant to provide a straightforward way of
  connecting SIP and XMPP clients to the same conference room.


Changelog: Initial published version. (psa)

Diff: N/A

URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0298.html



[Standards] Resuming after or before binding?

2011-06-09 Thread Jefry Lagrange
Hi! I'm implementing XEP-198, and it says that negotiation is done
only after authentication and binding, which is fine. But at the time
of resumption I don't know if I should start it after authentication
and binding or only after authentication. The document at
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html is not very explicit about
it.

Thanks.


--
Jefry Lagrange



-- 
Jefry Lagrange