On 06/09/2008 11:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 06/09/2008 9:50 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > >> However, I got talking to Rob McQueen - there's a certain amount of >> sense in, instead of describing this in terms of IBB, describing it in >> terms of Jingle. >> >> It's possible - and reasonable - to consider an XMPP stream as content, >> in which case the TLS becomes a transport (or possibly attribute of the >> transport). > > Part of the idea behind XTLS is that you might want to use the XTLS > "tunnel" for all e2e communications with another party. In particular, > you might want to use that tunnel so that you don't expose your IP > addresses during a Jingle negotiation (e.g., if you did XTLS over > ICE-TCP or SOCKS5). So forcing XTLS to depend on Jingle might defeat the > purpose. What transport would be used if we described XTLS in terms of > Jingle, and might you expose personally identifying information in that way?
I just had a chat with Justin Karneges about XTLS. I'm now convinced that it's best to follow the approach outlined above -- use Jingle to negotiate an e2e stream that is transported via a reliable transport mechanism such as SOCKS5 Bytestreams, IBB, reliable UDP, or whatever else people come up with. I am currently revising the proposal along those lines and will post to the list when I'm finished with the edits. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
