[Standards] Jingle initiate and resource determination

Lauri Kaila lauri.kaila at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 02:13:09 CDT 2007


2007/6/18, Ian Paterson <ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk>:
> Rachel Blackman wrote:
> > I admit I still do not quite see why we should not just use the
> > namespace in place of 'jingle-audio,' as far as this goes. Yeah, okay,
> > it's a little longer, but on the other hand it has all the information
> > we need.  If you support that namespace, you know that namespace, thus
> > you know the application type.  If you don't support that namespace,
> > then knowing the other side supports it is fundamentally fairly
> > useless to you anyway.
>
> I agree. The meanings of the namespaces are already well defined and
> understood. If we create new app names then we will need to define what
> those names mean in a normative way. We might even have to define what
> particular combinations of namespaces and app names mean! App names
> would seem to add complexity. I'm not convinced they add value that is
> worth the pain.

I agree. I could imagine the total network traffic could be even
smaller, because some iq requests wouldn't be needed.

-lauri


More information about the Standards mailing list