Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 06/14/2008 4:00 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> P.S.: Too bad I implemented the current XTLS today for testing >>> Ouch. You are too fast. :( >> >> Doesn't matter. I also had my previous coded so it is similar to the >> new specs. Except that I have no jingle implementation yet. > > OK cool.
I have some working code. It is not very error tolerant and only uses IBB (my implementation has no SOCKS5 yet) but it works. It is slower (no surprise) than the "old" XTLS but I guess it partly is my fault. I use iq for IBB (no idea if my server supports AMP) and I guess ejabberd is slowing me down (the server is in the same network with a GBit connection). I need to do some cleanups in my code before releasing the source for others to test. :) I have some questions about IBB: I should use <message> if I have AMP. But to detect that I need to ask both servers involved and the peer if they all support it, right? How do I ask the servers? I get a not-allowed from ejabberd when sending a disco-query. >>> If we can get this spec'd out soon, perhaps we'll even be able to hold a >>> bit of an interop event + hackfest at the XMPP Summit July 21 and 22: >> >> I will have to talk to my boss if the university will pay for it. :) > > The XSF may be able to provide some assistance to developers who > implement XTLS (or whatever we will call it now) -- I'm working with the > XSF Board of Directors about that. End-to-end encryption is a big > priority for us (though you'd never know it from all our failed attempts > in the past...). It is not only about the money, there is a project deadline at the end of July. If they let me go to the Summit it would be only for the two days (no extra vacation). A very long trip for just two days. Do you also meet at the IETF? Dublin is much easier for me (and not in July). Dirk -- The trouble with work is... it's so daily.
