I have some comments regarding the Proto-XEP "HTTP over XMPP": * I don't think the use of <iq type='get'/> is appropriate here, as per the guidelines in RFC6120 ยง 8.2.3. At a minimum, the unsafe methods (e.g., DELETE, POST, PUT, et al) ought to be <iq type='set'/>, although a strong argument can be made that all ought to be <iq type='set'/>.
* This protocols seems like an appropriate place to use [SHIM]. * I note that "Response formats" seem to be useable in requests. I would consider changing the term to something a little more generic. * Are there any concerns about what data transfer mechanisms/resposne formats an entity is expected to accept? This document seems to imply all entities MUST understand all of them, and I'm not sure that's a reasonable implication. * It would seem to me that the actual data transmission of chuckedBase64 and streamBase64 are better implemented as [IBB], or use Jingle with [XEP-261] IBB candidates. - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LK55L > [SHIM] XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata < http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html > [IBB] XEP-0049: In-Band Bytestreams < http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html > [XEP-261] XEP-0261: Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method < http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
