[Jingle] [Fwd: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0176 (Jingle ICE-UDP Transport Method)]

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Wed Feb 18 12:23:42 CST 2009


On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 16:03 +0000, Paul Witty wrote:
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:56 +0000, Paul Witty wrote:
> >   
> >> Olivier Crête wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 11:23 +0000, Paul Witty wrote:
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> With the session-accept now containing offered candidates, the 
> >>>> "rem-addr" and "rem-port" are no longer in use, and so should be
> >>>> dropped 
> >>>> from Table 2 of section 5.3.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> I'm a bit confused here, are you suggesting that the candidates in the
> >>> session-accept match the "a=remote-candidates" in SDP ?
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> No, they're just regular candidates, as might be offered in the 
> >> transport-info messages.
> >>     
> >
> > So how do you suggest we signal a=remote-candidates, I though that was
> > what rem-* was for (and I'm a bit confused on how it should work).
> >
> >   
> I was having a bit of a think over that, and I don't think we ever need 
> to signal the remote candidates.  It's designed to eliminate a race 
> condition when sending an updated offer 
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19#appendix-B.6), but 
> the reason for the updated offer in SDP 
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19#appendix-B.9) 
> doesn't apply to Jingle.

So your Jingle->SIP gateway doesn't need it either ?

-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Collabora Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20090218/61a73bc6/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Jingle mailing list