<abstract>This specification defines a Jingle application type for transferring files between two entities. The protocol provides a modular framework that enables the exchange of information about the file to be transferred as well as the negotiation of parameters such as the transport to be used.</abstract>
<li>Because the jingle-s5b and jingle-ibb transport methods are backward-incompatible, incremented protocol version number from 0 to 1 and changed namespace from urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:0 to urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:1.</li>
<remark><p>Initial published version.</p></remark>
</revision>
<revision>
<version>0.0.3</version>
<date>2008-02-29</date>
<initials>psa</initials>
<remark><p>Corrected use of content-replace action; specified that the In-Band Bytestreams transport method is mandatory-to-implement but must have the lowest preference order.</p></remark>
</revision>
<revision>
<version>0.0.2</version>
<date>2008-02-28</date>
<initials>psa</initials>
<remark>Modified negotiation flow to use new content-replace action.</remark>
<p>&xep0096; was the original XMPP protocol extension for file transfer negotiation. However, that protocol has several drawbacks, most related to the &xep0095; protocol on which it depends:</p>
<li>It does not enable a true, bidirectional negotiation; instead, the initiator sets the terms for the file transfer and the responder either accepts the terms or cancels the negotiation.</li>
<li>It is the only technology in the Jabber/XMPP protocol "stack" that uses <cite>XEP-095: Stream Initiation</cite>. More modern technologies such as voice and video session negotiation use &xep0166;, and it would be helpful if implementors could re-use the same code for all negotiation use cases.</li>
<p>Jingle file transfer is only as reliable as the transports on which it depends. In particular, SOCKS5 Bytestreams ("S5B") does not always result in NAT or firewall traversal. To work around that problem, this specification requires all implementations to support as a fallback mechanism In-Band Bytestreams ("IBB"), which usually results in a successful (if slow) file transfer.</p>
<p>Note: It is likely that a future version of this specification will also recommend implementation of a Jingle transport method that emulates the IETF's ICE-TCP technology, which is currently a work in progress (see &ice-tcp;); however, a future Jingle ICE-TCP transport method is dependent on the outcome of IETF work in this area.</p>
<p>First, the party that wishes to initiate the file transfer determines the responder's capabilities (via &xep0030; or &xep0115;). Here we assume that the responder supports the following service discovery features:</p>
<li>An application type of "urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:1". In particular, the <description/> element contains an <offer/> or <request/> element that in turn contains a <file/> element qualified by the existing 'http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfer' namespace from <cite>XEP-0096</cite>.</li>
<li>An appropriate transport method. So far the suggested methods are jingle-s5b (<cite>XEP-0260</cite>) and, as a fallback, jingle-ibb (<cite>XEP-0261</cite>).</li>
<p>In this example, the initiator is <romeo@montague.lit>, the responder is <juliet@capulet.lit>, the application type is a file offer, and the transport method is jingle-s5b.</p>
<pclass='box'>Note: Computing the hash of the file before sending it can slow down the process of file transfer, since the sending application needs to process the file twice. The sender might prefer to send the hash after the file transfer has begun, using a transport-info message as described under <linkurl='#hash'>Communicating the Hash</link>.</p>
<p>If the responder is able to connect to one of the streamhosts, it returns a Jingle session-accept (including only the JID of the streamhost to which it connected).</p>
<p>Once the transfer is completed, either party can terminate the Jingle session; preferably this is done by the entity that receives the file to ensure that the complete file (up to the advertised size) has been received.</p>
<section1topic='Communicating the Hash'anchor='hash'>
<p>At any time, the hosting entity can communicate the hash of the file to the receiving entity. This is done by sending a session-info message containing a <hash/> element qualified by the 'urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:info:1' namespace.</p>
<section1topic='Requesting a File'anchor='request'>
<p>If the entity that hosts a file has advertised its existence (or if a previous file transfer attempt has failed and the receiver would like to initiate another attempt), the entity that wishes to receive the file can "pull" the file from the hosting entity. This is done by sending a Jingle session-initiate to the hosting entity, including a &DESCRIPTION; element qualified by the 'urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:1' namespace and containing a <request/> element that defines the requested file.</p>
<p>Note: If the requesting entity knows the hash of the file, then it can include only that metadata in its request. If not, the requesting entity needs to include enough metadata to uniquely identify the file, such as the date, name, and size. For similar considerations, see &rfc5547;.</p>
<p>All implementations MUST support the Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method (<cite>XEP-0261</cite>) as a reliable method of last resort. An implementation SHOULD support other transport methods as well, especially the Jingle SOCKS5 Bytestreams Transport Method (<cite>XEP-0260</cite>).</p>
<p>An application MAY present transport methods in any order, except that the Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method MUST be the lowest preference.</p>
<p>Support for Jingle file transfer can be determined through discovery of the 'urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:file-transfer:1' namespace &VNOTE;, via either service discovery (<cite>XEP-0030</cite>) or entity capabilities (<cite>XEP-0115</cite>). If the initiator knows that the responder supports Jingle file transfer, it SHOULD first attempt negotiation using Jingle rather than SI.</p>
<p>In order to secure the data stream, implementations SHOULD use encryption methods appropriate to the transport method being used. For example, end-to-end encryption can be negotiated over either SOCKS5 Bytestreams or In-Band Bytestreams as described in <cite>XEP-0260</cite> and <cite>XEP-0261</cite>.</p>
<p>Refer to <cite>XEP-0047</cite>, <cite>XEP-0065</cite>, <cite>XEP-0096</cite>, <cite>XEP-0260</cite>, and <cite>XEP-0261</cite> for related security considerations.</p>
<p>Upon advancement of this specification from a status of Experimental to a status of Draft, the ®ISTRAR; shall add the foregoing namespace to the registry located at &NAMESPACES;, as described in Section 4 of &xep0053;.</p>
