On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 08:57:11AM +0200, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > Disclaimer: I haven’t looked into jingle stuff at all yet. > > On Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017 16:34:20 CEST Emmanuel Gil Peyrot wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:17:17AM +0200, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > > > - There is too much 'optional' stuff in the XEP. The hashing stuff for > > > example is virtually useless because I can't be sure the sender will send > > > that. > > > > I would like to introduce a way for the received to request a checksum, > > of either the entire file or a range of it, but for some usecases it > > may not be possible (for example when a client gets its data from a > > pipe, it can read it once but not more). > > That would still work if the sender can send the hash at the end of the > transfer. I am not sure if it makes sense to allow requesting only a range of > the file to be hashed -- do you have a specific use-case in mind where that > makes more sense than hashing the whole file?
When you already have the whole file, it is very big and the checksum doesn’t match. Since you want to economise bandwidth, you request the checksum of smaller pieces, or do some kind of bisection, to find out which range(s) you need to download again. > > -- jwi -- Emmanuel Gil Peyrot _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
