On 01/12/2012 03:57 PM, Marcus Lundblad wrote: > tor 2012-01-12 klockan 15:47 +0700 skrev Sergey Dobrov: >> Hello, I am reading the XEP-96 and see in the requirements section: >> "Enable seamless file transfer, including fall-back mechanisms as >> appropriate", then I see that socks5 and IBB are must be implemented in >> a XEP-96 compatible implementation. Ok, we can try to use socks5 and if >> it fail we will fallback to ibb and then we will guaranteed done with >> our transfer. But where is described HOW this fallback should be >> negotiated? The flow: >> >> 1. SI Request. We are must to include both socks5 and IBB as our >> stream-methods. >> 2. SI Response will always reply with socks5 because it must support >> both of protocols and socks5 is with high priority. >> 3. SOCKS5 is failed to establish a stream. >> 4. What we have to do next? Send again a SI request with only IBB >> included as our stream-methods? Should the recipient to ask again about >> the file transfer? How should it determine that it should not, if it's >> not? That's really unclear with the current XEP. >> >> The second thing is: maybe we should to remove the requirement to >> support both socks5 and ibb? Because it's not carried out de-facto by >> several implementations and not each platform can easily implement both >> bytestreams. >> >> > > You should probably use JingleFT if you're implementing something new > today. Hopefully it will gain more popularity. > With Jingle this scenario is covered. > If you want to implement SI transfer as well (to maintain legacy > compatibility) you might do like you described above. There's also some > extension to SI that is used by telepathy to handle the fallback > scenario.
I am familiar with the JingleFT specification and I like it but the thing is that I need some specification that can be used right now to make it possible to inter operate with majority of clients. The situation with file transfer now is not the best and I don't think that it's a good choice now to force the transition to another specification. Despite of everything, the standard has a fallback mechanism in it's requirements. But I can't find it. And I can't decide how to implement the XEP right at all. Should it be fixed? I think, yes. It should be fixed or marked as obsolete. > > //Marcus > > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
