[Standards] Jingle scenarios

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Thursday 01 November 2007 1:30 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Anything else?
>>
>> Basically these scenarios should force us to think through all the
>> possible session flows, Jingle actions, profiles, payload types,
>> transports, etc.
> 
> How about a discussion of the selected content payload types?  It is shown 
> which transport is chosen, but it is not shown which audio codec is chosen, 
> for example.
> 
> There is this text: "If the payload types and transport candidate can be 
> successfully used by both parties, then the initiator acknowledges the 
> session-accept and the parties begin to exchange media (in this case audio)", 
> which is probably fine to keep, but I'd like to additionally see something 
> that says "both parties have agreed upon using speex", since it was the 
> topmost payload type offered by both parties.  Or maybe I misunderstand 
> Jingle, and either party can send RTP packets of any of the listed codecs at 
> will?

Right, you use the highest-priority codec that you both support, where
priority is determined by the XML order of the <payload-type/> elements
(and I think the receiver trumps the initiator). That does need to be
clarified.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20071101/96b5b1f2/attachment.bin