Richard Dobson wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Richard Dobson wrote: >> >>> jingle bytestream >>> ----- >>> When we come to implement file transfer using jingle I would suggest >>> that rather than creating a brand new backwards incompatible file >>> transfer protocol that we simply implement a new jingle bytestream >>> transport just like XEP-0047 and XEP-0065 which would allow complete >>> compatibility with the SI negotiation but still gets all the benefits a >>> file transfer over jingle UDP would bring, i.e. better likelihood of >>> connection. >> >> I started working on such a beast a while back but never finished: >> >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-bytestreams.html >> >> That covered XEP-0065 only, but naturally we could define a transport >> type for IBB (XEP-0047) too. > > So would this work like XEP-0047 and XEP-0065 and just act as an extra > stream-method to plug into the SI negotiation? Which will then allow the > reuse of most of the file transfer and SI code in clients.
No, it would work the other way around -- it enables you to re-use your existing SOCK5 and IBB code, but for the negotiation you'd use Jingle instead of SI. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
