Am 06.03.2009 um 19:24 schrieb Dirk Meyer:
Depends on the file. If I send you a small txt file with my notes, IBB
is ok. If I send you a mp3 file, IBB is bad, S5B with proxy is ok.
If I
send you a HDTV recording, the proxy administrator will kill me if I
use
a proxy. So for file transfer it
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Yeah, but they should not use the same transport ;).
> IMO, we should standarize what types of streams are transported how.
> Like E2E chat MUST be usable using IBB and MAY be possible using P2E,
Agreed. IBB MUST be possible as fallback and you can try S5B if you
want.
Am 06.03.2009 um 18:07 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Right. But those are two different application types -- the first
one is
an application type of xmlstream and the second one is an application
type of filetransfer. They just happen to both use the same transport
(IBB), but the sessions are dif
On 3/6/09 10:00 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 05.03.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>> Right. I really don't see a need for having multiple e2e streams.
>
>
> I do. Imagine the following situation:
>
> I want to chat with someone encrypteed, thus I negotiate a session. I do
> th
Am 05.03.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Right. I really don't see a need for having multiple e2e streams.
I do. Imagine the following situation:
I want to chat with someone encrypteed, thus I negotiate a session. I
do that using IBB (it's the default, right? At least I think we
On 3/5/09 5:02 PM, Klaus Hartke wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I think that you send full-jid stanzas (to the right full jid!) over
>> the e2e, and anything to bare-jid, or other resources goes through the
>> server.
>
> If the e2e path replaces the path through the server for a full jid and
> tha
Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think that you send full-jid stanzas (to the right full jid!) over
> the e2e, and anything to bare-jid, or other resources goes through the
> server.
If the e2e path replaces the path through the server for a full jid and
that full jid has the highest priority, should a stan
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Klaus Hartke
wrote:
>> > Q4. Should stanzas directed to a bare jid always be sent
>> > via the server, or should the client look at received
>> > presence stanzas from that jid and, if the client has
>> > a end-to-end connection with the resource
On 3/5/09 3:43 PM, Marcus Lundblad wrote:
> tor 2009-03-05 klockan 08:43 -0700 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>>> Q8. How are stanzas routed if there are two or more end-
>>> to-end streams between two entities?
>> It's probably good to have only one. Why would you need two? Perhaps one
>> for
tor 2009-03-05 klockan 08:43 -0700 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
> > Q8. How are stanzas routed if there are two or more end-
> > to-end streams between two entities?
>
> It's probably good to have only one. Why would you need two? Perhaps one
> for file transfer and one for XMPP chat?
I thin
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Let's assume the new path replaces the old path for stanzas directed
> > from Romeo to the full jid of Juliet that Juliet used to negotiate the
> > end-to-end stream. Now, of course, it's still possible to send stanzas
> > to Juliet's bare jid:
> >
> > Q4. Should sta
On 3/5/09 8:07 AM, Klaus Hartke wrote:
> Hi,
Hallo Klaus!
> I'm currently implementing secure end-to-end XML streams based on
> Jingle-{IBB,S5B,XTLS,XML streams} and stumbled upon some questions
> regarding stanza routing.
Those are excellent questions.
> With secure end-to-end XML streams (e.g
Hi,
I'm currently implementing secure end-to-end XML streams based on
Jingle-{IBB,S5B,XTLS,XML streams} and stumbled upon some questions
regarding stanza routing.
With secure end-to-end XML streams (e.g., for the purpose of encrypted
text chat) we're moving away from clients with a single connect
13 matches
Mail list logo
