zooldk@gmail.comwe have three XEPs that needs to be review
zooldk@gmail.com • XEP-0234: Jingle File Transfer (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0234.html)
• XEP-0260: Jingle SOCKS5 Bytestreams Transport Method (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0260.html)
• XEP-0261: Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html)
Ali Sabilyep
Joe Mk
zooldk@gmail.comI've only been reading the file transfer.. and only have few comments to it.. how about you: ali and joe?
zooldk@gmail.comwhat is the "normal" procedure for a review?.. does anyone know?
Joe Mah, I'm glad you asked. This is new to me as well
Ali Sabilsame here
Joe Mwere you part of the 45 MUC review?
zooldk@gmail.comha ha.. then we are in the same boat together :-)
zooldk@gmail.comnope.. sorry
Joe MOK, I guess we all require some guidance on what sorts of comments are constructive
zooldk@gmail.comjup.. could be nice.. Ive been adding some stuff before on XEP166 (jingle) but that was before the review days
Joe MI have 234 open now. not too long. can read and at least discuss
zooldk@gmail.combut otherwise I was thinking that we could distribute things a bit.. so all of us three read all of the documents but one of us have a master document
Ali Sabilthat wouldn't be a bad idea
Joe Mok
zooldk@gmail.combut lets start with 234 together then.. have you read it ali?
Ali Sabilyes
zooldk@gmail.comcool
Joe Mplease continue while i catch up
zooldk@gmail.comha ha ;-)
Joe M:)
zooldk@gmail.comgive me 1 min to get the coffee
zooldk@gmail.comback
zooldk@gmail.comas I read it it looks pretty clear defined.. because it already uses the deprecated 0096 xep
Ali Sabilhas left
Ali Sabilhas joined
zooldk@gmail.combut there are some stuff that could be more explicit
Ali SabilI don't know what you think, but in section 3
zooldk@gmail.comE.g. the size attribute.. its apparently in bytes.. should there not be a unit on that? or should we at least write it explicitly
Ali Sabilwouldn't it be good to have a reminder about the fact that the message must be sent while the session is not terminated ?
zooldk@gmail.comthe hash?
Ali Sabilyes the hash
zooldk@gmail.comhmm let me read
zooldk@gmail.comheh yeah your riight. makes sense
Ali Sabilit's probably the "At any time" wording that might be confusing
zooldk@gmail.comso sending the hash from the hosting entity can onnly be done if your in an open session
zooldk@gmail.comjup!
Ali Sabilyes, that's already true because of how session-info is defined in 0166
zooldk@gmail.comit can only be done in the right state.. taht is in a session that is not terminated yet
zooldk@gmail.combut its good to be explicit anyways
zooldk@gmail.comthe same thing with the size of the file
Ali Sabillet me read
Ali Sabilyes, I agree
zooldk@gmail.comthere stands nothing about the unit right?
Ali SabilI can't find anything
zooldk@gmail.combut it's bytes... from the deprecated 96 xep
Joe Mhow many clients out there implement socks5 bytestreams? any idea
Joe M?
zooldk@gmail.comha ha.. I was thinking the same the other day.. have no idea
zooldk@gmail.comis there anyone?
zooldk@gmail.commost uses the old file transfer as well, right?
Joe Mout of band
Joe Mthat's the only one i've seen implemented
Ali Sabilyou mean xep-065 ?
Joe Myes, 65
Ali SabilI think Gajim implements it
Joe Mk
Joe Mthx
zooldk@gmail.comcould actually be cool to have that in the xep documents.. to see which clients/servers implement a given xep
Ali Sabilthat would be great actually
zooldk@gmail.comto see real life examples and find them easierly
zooldk@gmail.comthere is some other stuff that i was wondering about in 234.. is it at all possible to resume a file transfer it you have disconnected and connects again?.. or do you have to transfer the whole file again
Joe MLooks like you'd have to start again
Joe Mbut this is for relatively small files, no?
zooldk@gmail.comnormally.. ;-)
zooldk@gmail.comI mean.. we cant assume anything. but I would probably not transfer Ironman2 in HD
zooldk@gmail.comthere are more effective ways there..
Joe M:)
Joe Mif i understand this correctly, the sock5 bytestream is handled like a media session, in essence
Joe MAm I off or is that the basic jist?
zooldk@gmail.comyes
Joe Mso the file goes peer to peer
Ali Sabilsocks5 is used as a transport
Joe Mright
zooldk@gmail.comlike a normal jingle
Joe Myep
zooldk@gmail.comits just used to set up a stream
Ali Sabilconcerning the resume transfer issue
Joe Mso for organizations that need to virus scaning, or content inspection, they're out of luck
Joe Msorry Ali...
Ali Sabilimagine a fictionnal bitorrent transport
Joe Myep
Joe Mwe can talk about resume
Ali Sabilwe would be able to resume the transfer at the transport layer (in this case bitorrent)
zooldk@gmail.comyes.. your proabably right
Joe Mso it's up to the transport layer to work out that stuff
Ali Sabilso if we were to try adding support for resuming transfers, it would probably be better done at the transport layer and not at the session management layer
Joe M:)
Ali Sabilam I wrong ?
zooldk@gmail.comno that would probably be the easiest
Joe Mwhat you are saying makes sense to me
Ali Sabilso with the currently existing transports we have no way of resuming a transfer
Joe Mi don't know enough about the transports to comment
zooldk@gmail.comhave you seen any clients doing it?..
Ali Sabilresuming filetransfers ?
zooldk@gmail.comyes
zooldk@gmail.comI mean xmpp clients.. not ftp and others
zooldk@gmail.comadium and pidgin doesnøt
zooldk@gmail.comdoes'nt
Ali Sabilnot XMPP, but iirc the MSN protocol no matter how ugly it is allows this
Ali Sabilbut it's done at the transport layer, and not at the session management layer
zooldk@gmail.comok.. lets leave it there then
Joe Mit would be hard to tell if an xmpp client implemented 234 or 261, wouldn't it?
Joe Min-band looks more appealing to me, from a security point of view
zooldk@gmail.comno not that much.. we could just sniff and see what it send when trying to fetch a file
Joe Mwould enable the extension of the server to inspect, etc
zooldk@gmail.comyes
Joe Mshould these three xeps but collapsed in to 1?
Joe Mthey are very short and so closely related
zooldk@gmail.comi dont think so
Joe Mok
Ali SabilI don't think so
zooldk@gmail.comevent though they are related :-)
Joe Mfair enough
Ali Sabil234 defines the general protocol, while 260 and 261 define 2 transports
Joe Myes
zooldk@gmail.comits like 166, 167 etc.
zooldk@gmail.comthey were together in the start but was split up
zooldk@gmail.comto keep it simple
Joe Mthat's good to know, thx
zooldk@gmail.com:-)
Ali Sabilbasically in theory it's possible to use xep-0166 + xep-0167 + xep-260 for a media session
zooldk@gmail.comyes
zooldk@gmail.com167 descripes the payloads as far as I remember
Ali Sabilit describes the rtp application in the same way that xep-0234 describes file transfer as an application
Joe Mk
Joe MI'm wondering about the communicating to of the hash
Joe Mit says it can be done at any time
Joe Mdoes that present a challenge for someone implementing?
zooldk@gmail.comwhile the session is open
Joe Mand ensure interop?
zooldk@gmail.comhave to see 96
Joe Mlooking
zooldk@gmail.comby the way.. where is the XSD schema for the 234?.. it seems like its using the 96 : <xs:sequence xmlns:ft='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'>
<xs:element ref='ft:file'/> .
zooldk@gmail.comshouldn't we put it in explicitly so we can see the full schema?
Ali Sabil<xs:import
namespace='http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer'
schemaLocation='http://www.xmpp.org/schemas/file-transfer.xsd'/>
zooldk@gmail.comyes I see the import
zooldk@gmail.combut why use a deprecated schema.. why not write it there explicitly
zooldk@gmail.comI mean 96 will dissapear
Ali SabilI don't know these things are generally managed
zooldk@gmail.comhmmm I was just wondering
Ali Sabilif it is meant to disappear, I think it's pretty weird that we have a reference to a deprecated xep
zooldk@gmail.comwell I dunno..
zooldk@gmail.comthats why I was wondering that much.. ;-)
zooldk@gmail.comits in Draft..
zooldk@gmail.combut it seems like that in the intro of 234.. we are reusing from 96 in order to deprecate.. Or am I wrong?
Ali Sabilthat's what the intro seems to imply
zooldk@gmail.comI am glad that we are thinking the same.. ha ha :-)
zooldk@gmail.comwell I will note it in my small notebook about 234.
zooldk@gmail.comhave we anything more to add to 234?.. or shall we try to go into 260,261. the transportations?
Ali Sabilcan we make a small summary before moving on ?
zooldk@gmail.comyes
Joe Mplease
zooldk@gmail.comso... we need to do it more explicitly that in (hashing)"At any time" means when the session is not terminated
zooldk@gmail.comalso to make the size more explicitly.. so the it stands bytes.
Ali Sabil- Section 3. we need to clarify that the hash MUST be transferred within the session lifetime
Joe Mgreat
zooldk@gmail.comexactly
Ali Sabilis it a MUST transfer ?
Joe Mgood question
Ali Sabilor a SHOULD transfer and MUST be done within the session lifetime
zooldk@gmail.comhave to be MUST
zooldk@gmail.comSHOULD is an option
Joe Mand MD5 only?
Ali Sabilis the hash a requirement ?
Joe Ma great question
zooldk@gmail.comI dont think so
Ali Sabilhmm, and where does it say that it is md5 ?
zooldk@gmail.com"the hosting entity can communicate the hash of the file to the receiving entity.."
zooldk@gmail.comthe magic word is "can".
zooldk@gmail.comso i think it is optional
Ali Sabilso let's turn this into a SHOULD
Joe Mmakes sense
zooldk@gmail.comwhere should we put the unit of bytes?
zooldk@gmail.comthe file tag is poorly described.. if we didn't have 96. ;-)
Ali Sabilyes
Ali Sabilhmm seems like xep-0096 had support for resuming transfers
zooldk@gmail.comhe he he
Joe Mwhere in 96?
Ali Sabil<range>
zooldk@gmail.comwhere do you see it
Joe Mah
zooldk@gmail.comso its made in the setup protocol there
Ali Sabilyes
zooldk@gmail.comso as I see it, it is not fully backward compatible.
Ali Sabilit doesn't seem to be
zooldk@gmail.comhmm
Joe Mthat's an issue
Ali SabilI would say that xep-0260 needs quite a lot of improvement
zooldk@gmail.comyes
zooldk@gmail.com+1
Joe Mon 234 and 96...why the requirement to implement both bytestreams and in-band?
Joe Mcan the implementation be in-band only, simply decline bytestream requests?
Joe MI'm thinking the corporate installations would not want 260 implemented in general
zooldk@gmail.comto reuse 0047
zooldk@gmail.comno they would probably go for the inband
Joe Magain, i'm thinking interop
Joe M0047 is to be deprecated in favor of 261?
zooldk@gmail.comseems like it
zooldk@gmail.comsame words used as in 234
Joe Mok, so are we on to 260?
Ali Sabilwhat do you think about this summary:
Ali SabilHash transfer in section 3. has a poor wording
• Reusing too much of 0096:
∘ Size specification in bytes
∘ Hash algorithm == md5
• Ranged queries lost 0096 -> 0260 (but backward compatibility kept)
∘ If ranged queries are to be implemented, should be transport options/transport features
Ali Sabil(indentations seems to have been lost)
Joe Mi can see it pretty well
Joe Musing Adium
Ali Sabiloh, not me
zooldk@gmail.comyes.. and either we use explicit xsd in the 234 or we have a problem when deprecating 96
zooldk@gmail.comI see it as well (adium) :-)
Ali SabilShould use explicit XSD in 0234 (avoid imports) ?
zooldk@gmail.comyes.. Well at least I think so
Joe M+1
zooldk@gmail.comotherwise we seem to have a good summary
zooldk@gmail.comshall we write a mail with our summary to the member/tech list or just update the svn our selves?
Ali Sabilno idea, I am new here :)
Joe MPerhaps notify the list that we met, and post results in the system
Joe MI think we're all new :)
zooldk@gmail.comonly been here half a year.. so me too
zooldk@gmail.comhas left
Ali SabilI'd say we post to the mailing list
zooldk@gmail.comhas joined
zooldk@gmail.comsorry.. my network just blow up
Ali SabilWelcome back
zooldk@gmail.comha ha.. thanks
zooldk@gmail.comyeah.. lets send it to the techlist
zooldk@gmail.comshal I summarize it in a mail?
zooldk@gmail.comshall
Joe Mgreat, yes
Ali Sabilsure
zooldk@gmail.comok.. I'll look through the XEPs again and write a summary tomorrow, ok?
Joe MThank you!
zooldk@gmail.comwe have nothing more to the 260,261?
Ali Sabilperfect, thanks
zooldk@gmail.comnp
Joe Mwe probably do, I have 15 more minutes
zooldk@gmail.comme too.. going to a dinner soon
Ali Sabilhmm, I haven't started reviewing 260 nor 261
zooldk@gmail.comwell if you have time we can have a small talk again tomorrow..
Ali Sabilbut I have a problem with <proxy-error>
Ali Sabilin 260
Ali SabilI am afraid I won't be able to join tomorrow
zooldk@gmail.comahh ok
Joe Mtomorrow is difficult for me as well
Joe Mwhat is the issue w/proxy-error?
Ali Sabilnot familiar with the xep enough, but how do you specify which proxy failed ?
Ali Sabilin case you sent multiple proxy candidates ?
Joe Mah, i see it's too generic
Joe Mdo we want the protocol to tell us?
Ali Sabil<candidate-used> has cid
zooldk@gmail.comisn't it hanging on a candidate?
Ali Sabil<candidate-error> is sent when all the candidates failed
Ali Sabilyep I see
zooldk@gmail.comand proxy when only one of them?
Joe Mbut in this case. ALL candidates have failed, right?
Ali Sabilyes that's right
Ali SabilI got it wrong
Ali Sabil:)
Joe M;)
Ali Sabilwhat about we setup another meeting sometimes next week for reviewing 260 and 261 ?
Joe Mgood idea
Ali Sabilbecause in 15 minutes we won't get much done
Joe Magree
zooldk@gmail.com+1
zooldk@gmail.comhow about wedensday?
zooldk@gmail.comwedensday after work (CEST).. so about 19:00 CEST?
zooldk@gmail.comor are you too busy Joe?
zooldk@gmail.comwe can make it later if you want
Joe MI need to fix my firewall at work for the high port
zooldk@gmail.comha ha
Joe Mi have to submit a ticket, wait two weeks, etc
Joe Mso...
Ali Sabil:)
Joe Mone week from today could work
Joe Mor very early in the AM New York time
zooldk@gmail.comha ha.. can't you do it your self, and by pass all the bureaucracy? ;-)
Ali Sabilnext saturday ?
Joe Mi wish!!
Joe MSwiss banks are a little fussy about security ;)
Ali Sabiluse BOSH
zooldk@gmail.comwait.. I'll check my calendar
zooldk@gmail.comyeah.. use BOSH
Joe MI'll check out a BOSH client
zooldk@gmail.comI made several my self.. easy wth Strophe
Joe Mcool
zooldk@gmail.comIm fine with next saturday ... but when should the review be done?. is there a date?'
Joe MIf i can get access to this room, then it can be during business US business hours
zooldk@gmail.comok Joe, its up to you
Ali Sabilso Joe, what about you send a mail sometimes during the week to setup the meeting ?
zooldk@gmail.com+1
zooldk@gmail.com:-)
Joe Mok
Ali Sabilboth Steffen and me are on the CEST timezone
Joe Mok
Joe Mi'm think next Saturday, but a bit earlier
zooldk@gmail.comyeah.. Denmark and Norway right?
Joe Mnice
Ali Sabilyes :)
Joe Mgood spots in the world
zooldk@gmail.comyeah.. right now it is fun to watch ice hockey.. ;-)
Joe MOK, I'll send a mail....will probably be for 8:30 EDT Saturday
Joe MThanks for your time.
zooldk@gmail.comyes.. just pass a mail around!
Ali Sabilthanks everyone
zooldk@gmail.comthanks!
zooldk@gmail.comI'll send a mail around tomorrow with some of our summaries..
Ali Sabilgreat
Joe Moff to my son's baseball game....enjoy the rest of the weekend