[Standards] Re: [Standards-JIG] XEP0168 - UDP Sessions- AddUDPhandshake

[Thiago Camargo]

Can we modularize candidate types instead of transport method?
It's Just an idea.

Regards,
Thiago

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: quarta-feira, 18 de abril de 2007 13:06
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] Re: [Standards-JIG] XEP0168 - UDP Sessions-
AddUDPhandshake

Thiago Camargo wrote:

> My suggestion Peter is to unify Jingle transport in only one XEP with
> many candidate types. 

That's sort of opposed to the Jingle philosophy of modularity, 
especially because we don't know what other kinds of transports people 
might define in the future (ssltcp, RTMP, proprietary transports that I 
don't know anything about).

> And add something more dynamic than static and
> defined ICE candidates.

The way ICE candidates are listed is pretty dynamic already, since we're

simply tracking what is in the ICE I-D for that (the priorities and such

are assigned by the client depending on its preferred NICs etc.).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml