Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:04:16 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Pavel Simerda wrote:On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:49:01 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Ahoj Pavle! Pavel Simerda wrote:Hello, I have some suggestions for XEP-0231 (Data Element).Thanks for looking at this spec so thoroughly.I actually have some questions. First, lolek from the jabbim.czproject is going to propose a XEP for text emoticons.Similar to XEP-0038? We can bring that back if someone wants to maintain it.Similar but more powerful and not file-based but most probably based on Data Elements. There may be a lot of other extensive changes. If these changes can be made, I believe Martin would maintain it if he gets the chance.
OK, great. I'm happy to help.
I like his ideas but I suggested him to use Data Element instead of a custom solution.+1He still has doubts but I promised him to try to sort it out and to help him with language corrections of his document too.Great, thanks.I didn't find in the specs what should be used for domain ID in the CID. The examples apparently use the domain part of JID that is not unique for the clients. I looked at the RFC and still don't know a proper mapping to XMPP. His original idea was to use a cryptographic hash function and not a CID.I think your idea of a UUID followed by the domain part of the JID would work well.He also pointed out he misses a feature that would allow a client to advertise which mimetypes it supports.Yes we can add a disco feature for that.This is another questions... if it's just emoticons, should we just support png and mng types or add some accept-advertisement facility?I don't think it hurts to define a way to advertise what MIME types you support. We'll use the data element for things other than emoticons, but IMHO the simplest approach would be to advertise in general which MIME types you support, not "I support these mime types for emoticons" and "I support these other mime types for file transfer thumbnails" etc. Does anyone think that level of complexity is needed?I'm not sure. Let's wait for other comments.
Well I'm not a fan of adding complexity if we don't need it.
Is there a written policy for image formats in XMPP extensions?Not yet.PNG for static raster images, MNG for animated raster images, SVG for vector images? That's something I would expect from every client.
Sure. But some people think JPG and GIF are good too (e.g., I think JPG is the default in vCards or LDAP or somesuch).
Right now, as the example shows: <message from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/castle' to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' type='groupchat'> <body>Yet here's a spot.</body> <html xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/xhtml-im'> <body xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'> <p> Yet here's a spot. <img alt='A spot' src='cid:[email protected]'/> </p> </body> </html><data xmlns='urn:xmpp:tmp:data-element' alt='A spot'cid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' type='image/png'> iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAYAAACNMs+9AAAABGdBTUEAALGP C/xhBQAAAAlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAAAAAd0SU1FB9YGARc5KB0XV+IA AAAddEVYdENvbW1lbnQAQ3JlYXRlZCB3aXRoIFRoZSBHSU1Q72QlbgAAAF1J REFUGNO9zL0NglAAxPEfdLTs4BZM4DIO4C7OwQg2JoQ9LE1exdlYvBBeZ7jq ch9//q1uH4TLzw4d6+ErXMMcXuHWxId3KOETnnXXV6MJpcq2MLaI97CER3N0 vr4MkhoXe0rZigAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== </data> </message> Note: in this particular example the data is very short, this may not be the case in real world where people tend to ignore the size of data they send.Yes, that's just about the smallest image I could find. The spec says that the image should not be more than 8k (which is twice the suggested size of an IBB chunk) but we don't know if people will typically send images that are smaller or larger than 8k -- I think smaller but I don't know that yet.Might it be advertised by the client/server? And rejected if the other party tries to send a bigger one (just to force them to fix it)?I think that's handled at a different layer (e.g., rate limiting). But we do need to define better handling for stanzas that are too large (there is a proto-XEP about it but the Council didn't accept it and I never incorporated their feedback).Hmm. I know that people at jabbim.cz use a roster-renaming utility (for icq transport). They wait a long time between stanzas and the renaming can often takes more than just several minutes.If it's optional, it does no great harm. In fact it's not even a feature, just an implementation note.We send data once for every session (and omit for subsequent messages).In this case it's important to define "session" (see rfc321bis). Is it a chat session, a presence session, or something else?Exactly.This has two important implications: 1) The other entity may or may not cache it for the session and reuse it. That is good. 2) If an entity keeps the data for a longer time (e.g. for weeks or even permanently), this cache will never be used. As the sending entity always resends the data for a new session. What I propose is: * By default the sending entity would not send the data. It would merely reference it by its cid url. * Let the recieving client follow "3.4 Retrieving Uncached Media Data" if the data is not cached (no real change, this is already being done).I think I like that approach. It introduces a round trip for the IQ, which might introduce some latency. But it puts the burden for "storing" and "serving" the image on the sender, which might discourage abuse of in-band images.* Reserve the possibility of sending the data immediately with the message for the *specific* case that the sending client actually knows the recieving party cannot have the data cached (e.g. the data was never sent before). This behavior should be considered optional.In that case the sender needs to keep a list of every JID to which it has ever sent the image. That seems suboptimal.I didn't write it exactly as I meant it. There may be cases we are knowingly sending something really new. But we might just as well drop this feature if you think it's better.Ok.I'm afraid some people will object.Don't be afraid -- some people will always object. :):DAnd I suppose the recipient might have received the image from another sender at some point, or might have received the image through other means (e.g., an emoticon "bundle").The problem is... that we really want the users to get what we send them. If they got it from someone else, we need to secure it by a hash function, not a mere ID. It would have to actually check the hash when caching.Isn't that a bit paranoid for something as lightweight as emoticon bundles?The problem is that the Data Element could very soon be used for other purposes. For me this is a grave security hole that might cause a real headache in the future. But I'm not only a bit paranoid :). Working privacy and security is what originally brought me from ICQ to Jabber... only then I realized how cool it actually is in other areas.
Perhaps you could describe the possible attacks?
Another issue would be the particular hash functions. Some client authors or users may want to prevent using data from third parties protected by weak hash functions. That's why I only considered caching per sender JID.I suppose caching per sender JID makes sense, yes.I suggest this if we don't take the cryptograhic way. Or we could take both ways (let the implementors choose).
No, you're probably right that caching per sender JID is reasonable.
If we want to use hashes... and third party data, we should use some specific "hostnames", possibly sha256.cid.xmpp.org for sha256 or something like that.Sure. If desired.It would be - for globally-shared data, so the IDs actually match. The global-sharing feature should be optional anyway, so it can be added at any time. No reason to defer implementations.
Agreed.
I further propose we add some informational section about generation of CIDs. Although it's specified elsewhere, I believe this XEP will be very useful and will be referenced from many future XEPs (and maybe improved as well - possibly some server caching etc). I think the informational section could suggest UUIDs generated by hashing the actual content.Yes I think that would be helpful.Another thing that could be considered... is to add some sort of caching hint attribute that would suggest how long its reasonableto cache a particular resource.Do you think that would really be helpful? I'm still thinking about it...This feature would be optional, so it's easy to add it when we think it's useful. Right now I have no idea :).Maybe we could borrow from HTTP Cookies but allow (suggest) the clients to have some mechanisms for limiting the time, size and number of cached objects. There are many possibilities, I will just describe one of them.Do you have examples of these?The attribute values could be stated more abstractly... like... "session", "short", "medium", "long" with recommended defaults, for example. But usually the sender knows better.Mimicking HTTP values is OK with me.No problem for me either, we can just define the syntax.
OK I'll check the HTTP cookie spec for details.
Well it seems a bit strong to say you SHOULD NOT cache in those instances. Just leave it up to the implementation.cache="no" - no reason for caching the file will not be used againPerhaps a thumbnail related to file transfer or some other ephemeral image?cache="session" - we suggest the recieving party only caches for this particular sessionPerhaps also a thumbnail, or an image related to a whiteboarding session?cache="12" - we suggest caching for twelve days from the last use of this cid (!) - for every use (recieved reference) the recieving client should reset the date we count fromPerhaps images included in an XHTML notification from a blogging service or somesuch?cache="unlimited" - we suggest the client picks the longest time it allows (it could possibly cache some small pieces of data permanenty)Perhaps a commonly-used emoticon?Good use cases, thanks.Of course, the client MAY ignore the caching hit. In this case it SHOULD NOT cache at all.Why not? My client could ignore caching hints because it has its own local policy (e.g. cache images only from people in my "Friends" group, but cache those forever because I want to keep them in message history). Or my client could ignore caching hints because it simply can't cache images (no room on the device, web client, etc.).I don't know, really :).If we mimic HTTP even in this respect, missing cache would mean session-only (possibly other user's online session).If the cache attribute is not specified, we should decide on a reasonable default value ('session' or '1' day both seem good to me).I think that's up to the client.A reasonable default makes no harm, does it? :)I suppose '1' day is OK, or 'session' if define what we mean by that.If we take the way of HTTP, this is a nonissue.
OK, let's do that then. Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
