On 01/31/2012 05:54 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > At its meeting on December 20, 2011, the XMPP Council agreed to issue > a "Call for Experience" regarding XEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams), in > preparation for perhaps advancing this specification from Draft to > Final in the XSF's standards process. To help the Council decide > whether this XEP is ready to advance to a status of Final, the Council > would like to gather the following information: > > 1. What software has implemented XEP-0047? Please note that the > protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (and > preferably more).
I have tested XEP-47 implementations in tkabber and Vacuum-IM. Also, I have my own implementation in my experimental library named "twilix" which is an high level wrapper on top of twisted library. This implementation is used now to pass attachments to my experimental microblogging platform implementation (named LiJ) which based on XEP-277. The source code of the implementation is placed here: https://github.com/xamvz/twilix/blob/master/twilix/bytestreams/ibb/base.py > > 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined > in XEP-0047? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible, > suggested solutions. The only problem I remember with the XEP is in this paragraph: > The base64-encoded data to be sent, prior to any wrapping in the <data/> > element and IQ or message stanza, MUST NOT be larger than the 'block-size' > determined in the bytestream negotiation. It's not clear for me when I have to check the length of the block: for raw data or for base64 encoded? In the last case it's hard to do such encoding. I implemented the last case for the first time but then I noticed that Vacuum-IM checks it for raw data and so my implementation said that Vacuum-IM sends inappropriate packets, so for now I am checking a raw data. Maybe it will be good to specify this thing more clearly. > > 3. Is the text of XEP-0047 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples > needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? > Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any > suggestions you have for improving the text. > > If you have any comments about advancing XEP-0047 from Draft to Final, > please provide them by the close of business on Friday, February 24, > 2012. After the Call for Experience, this XEP might undergo revisions > to address feedback received, after which it will be presented to the > XMPP Council for voting to a status of Final. > > You can review the specification here: > > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html > > Please send all feedback to the [email protected] discussion list. > > Thanks! > > Peter > > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
