6 Aug
2024
6 Aug
'24
9:06 a.m.
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Jingle Audio/Video Conferences
Abstract:
This specification defines a way to hold multiparty conferences with
an SFU via Jingle.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/av_conferences.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
6 Aug
6 Aug
10:52 a.m.
Hi,
Thanks for proposing this specification.
I still fail to see why it is necessary or a good idea to create a new
Jingle session for every participant stream. I see a lot of downsides
without any obvious upside. As I understood, the reason to do this is
that some SFU implementations use one WebRTC session per participant.
However, there is no rule that says that a WebRTC session corresponds
to a Jingle session. It's perfectly valid to translate multiple WebRTC
sessions to multiple contents in a single Jingle session.
There's no way for a client to know if an incoming call is part of
already running conference call or independent, except for comparing
the from-attribute if the iq stanza of an otherwise unrelated Jingle
session.
As of now, a single device can (technically) have multiple independent
Jingle sessions and calls, even multiple between the same JIDs. While
there probably aren't a lot of usecases for that (except for file share
+ single call at the same time), it seems inappropriate to disallow
this by giving two calls with the same entity a special meaning (aka
saying they form a conference) which is effectively what this XEP does.
When multiple sessions are used, each stream needs to negotiate an
additional ICE (+DTLS) session, because BUNDLE grouping is only defined
within a Jingle session, not across sessions. This means unnecessary
delay when new participants join. I understand that some available SFUs
don't BUNDLE different participants, but that doesn't mean it's always
a bad idea to support that.
The current design doesn't allow the SFU to mix audio signals. While
mixing is not strictly a task for SFUs, hybrid SFUs that mix audio and
forward video are not uncommon for large A/V setups, so supporting this
also would be reasonable. COIN already does support to announce audio
mixing, but that by design wouldn't work if each participant needs to
get their own Jingle session.
Marvin
On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for
a new XEP.
Title: Jingle Audio/Video Conferences
Abstract:
This specification defines a way to hold multiparty conferences with
an SFU via Jingle.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/av_conferences.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
11:39 a.m.
+1 to what Marvin says.
Best Regards,
Sergei
вт, 6 авг. 2024 г. в 19:52, Marvin W <xmpp(a)larma.de>de>:
Hi,
Thanks for proposing this specification.
I still fail to see why it is necessary or a good idea to create a new
Jingle session for every participant stream. I see a lot of downsides
without any obvious upside. As I understood, the reason to do this is
that some SFU implementations use one WebRTC session per participant.
However, there is no rule that says that a WebRTC session corresponds
to a Jingle session. It's perfectly valid to translate multiple WebRTC
sessions to multiple contents in a single Jingle session.
There's no way for a client to know if an incoming call is part of
already running conference call or independent, except for comparing
the from-attribute if the iq stanza of an otherwise unrelated Jingle
session.
As of now, a single device can (technically) have multiple independent
Jingle sessions and calls, even multiple between the same JIDs. While
there probably aren't a lot of usecases for that (except for file share
+ single call at the same time), it seems inappropriate to disallow
this by giving two calls with the same entity a special meaning (aka
saying they form a conference) which is effectively what this XEP does.
When multiple sessions are used, each stream needs to negotiate an
additional ICE (+DTLS) session, because BUNDLE grouping is only defined
within a Jingle session, not across sessions. This means unnecessary
delay when new participants join. I understand that some available SFUs
don't BUNDLE different participants, but that doesn't mean it's always
a bad idea to support that.
The current design doesn't allow the SFU to mix audio signals. While
mixing is not strictly a task for SFUs, hybrid SFUs that mix audio and
forward video are not uncommon for large A/V setups, so supporting this
also would be reasonable. COIN already does support to announce audio
mixing, but that by design wouldn't work if each participant needs to
get their own Jingle session.
Marvin
On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a
proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Jingle Audio/Video Conferences
Abstract:
This specification defines a way to hold multiparty conferences with
an SFU via Jingle.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/av_conferences.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
3:08 p.m.
Le mardi 6 août 2024, 18:52:04 UTC+2 Marvin W a écrit :
Hi,
Thanks for proposing this specification.
I still fail to see why it is necessary or a good idea to create a new
Jingle session for every participant stream. I see a lot of downsides
without any obvious upside. As I understood, the reason to do this is
that some SFU implementations use one WebRTC session per participant.
However, there is no rule that says that a WebRTC session corresponds
to a Jingle session. It's perfectly valid to translate multiple WebRTC
sessions to multiple contents in a single Jingle session.
There's no way for a client to know if an incoming call is part of
already running conference call or independent, except for comparing
the from-attribute if the iq stanza of an otherwise unrelated Jingle
session.
As of now, a single device can (technically) have multiple independent
Jingle sessions and calls, even multiple between the same JIDs. While
there probably aren't a lot of usecases for that (except for file share
+ single call at the same time), it seems inappropriate to disallow
this by giving two calls with the same entity a special meaning (aka
saying they form a conference) which is effectively what this XEP does.
When multiple sessions are used, each stream needs to negotiate an
additional ICE (+DTLS) session, because BUNDLE grouping is only defined
within a Jingle session, not across sessions. This means unnecessary
delay when new participants join. I understand that some available SFUs
don't BUNDLE different participants, but that doesn't mean it's always
a bad idea to support that.
The current design doesn't allow the SFU to mix audio signals. While
mixing is not strictly a task for SFUs, hybrid SFUs that mix audio and
forward video are not uncommon for large A/V setups, so supporting this
also would be reasonable. COIN already does support to announce audio
mixing, but that by design wouldn't work if each participant needs to
get their own Jingle session.
Marvin
Hi Marvin,
thanks for the feedback.
As we have discussed during last Berlin sprint, I've followed closely the
implementation of the SFU I've used for the implementation (Galène) for
simplicity, and to have something working quickly. I'm totally open and
willing to move gradually to another design, and notably to use a single
session. I'm still wondering if it would make sense to have both approaches or
if having a single Jingle session is always the best way to go (also regarding
the facility of implementation which is a design goal).
The current design has the advantage to be very easy to implement, and
relatively similar to what is done with MUJI (without the MUC part, which is
not necessary here). The peer JID is indeed the way to differentiate the call:
the disco identity is here to indicate that it's an A/V conference room (and
XEP-0298 'isfocus' attribute is used during the Jingle negotiation as
additional indicator). The SFU service must not do independent call, it's A/V
conferences only, so there is not way to mix it. A file sharing can still
happen with an SFU service/av conference room (it's just another session with
jingle-ft instead of A/V streams).
Yes the ICE negotiation indeed add delay, this is also noted on Galène. I
think that this is acceptable as first implementation, and this can evolve to a
better design with following revisions.
While supporting audio mixing would be nice, I don't think that this is
necessary for first implementation. This also can be a future addition when the
design will be updated.
The goal here is to have something very simple, straightforward to implement,
so XMPP ecosystem can have several clients with multiparty conferences soon.
I have already a SFU service and client implementation using this
specification. Again I'm totally open to move this gradually to a better
design. However I think that the current one is acceptable as starting point,
and is very easy to implement.
On another topic, several people have informed me that there was a copy/paste
error with the "overview" section appearing twice, it would be nice to remove
one of them but I don't want to modify the protoXEP before council review.
I'll do it at next revision.
Note that I'll be on vacation in coming weeks. I'll check from time to time my
message, but I'll be very slow to answer.
Best,
Goffi
20 Aug
20 Aug
9:55 a.m.
Dear all,
It appears that this proposal has been vetoed. However, there is no
information available on this list regarding the reason for this decision. I
had to consult the council logs, and have encountered a similar issue with my
previous proposal.
Could singpolyma please provide a detailed explanation of why this work was
vetoed? Additionally, what steps would be necessary to revise the proposal so
that it can be approved?
I understand that "it is incompatible with what's needed for most SFUs," but
I
believe this statement is incorrect. This XEP is an adaptation of the protocol
used in the Galène SFU. Furthermore, I have already indicated my willingness
to evolve the proposal towards a single Jingle session, though for the initial
draft, I chose to make a direct adaptation of the Galène protocol.
Thank you for considering these points.
On another note, while I understand that both the editor and council have
heavy workloads, it would be beneficial if the results of council votes were
shared on this list, possibly accompanied by relevant log excerpts.
Thank you once again.
Best regards,
Goffi
21 Aug
21 Aug
9:17 a.m.
Le mardi 20 août 2024, 18:35:52 UTC+2 Stephen Paul Weber a écrit :
Hi Singpolyma,
Thank you for your answer.
Just because a specification is small doesn't mean it's not useful.
Currently, there is no way to handle an A/V conference room in XMPP. This
protoXEP specifies how to join an A/V conference room, use metadata, implement
the discovery mechanism, determine the identity to use, and configure the room.
Its concise nature is deliberate, aimed at facilitating easy implementation,
but it remains a necessary component for making A/V conference calls.
Without it, we have currently no way to make SFU-based conference calls.
Furthermore, I plan to extend this specification by adding functionality to
retrieve joined users and notify new joiners, as the SFU may choose not to
send all participants' streams.
I'd also like to mention that I have a working implementation of this
protoXEP, utilizing a server component based on Galène.
Regards,
Goffi
I have already
indicated my willingness
to evolve the proposal towards a single Jingle session
Once it uses a single Jingle session, what is even left for the XEP to say
that isn't covered by existing Jingle XEPs?
25 Aug
25 Aug
8:09 a.m.
Le mercredi 21 août 2024, 17:17:47 UTC+2 Goffi a écrit :
Le mardi 20 août 2024, 18:35:52 UTC+2 Stephen Paul
Weber a écrit :
Hi Singpolyma,
Thank you for your answer.
Just because a specification is small doesn't mean it's not useful.
Currently, there is no way to handle an A/V conference room in XMPP. This
protoXEP specifies how to join an A/V conference room, use metadata, implement
the discovery mechanism, determine the identity to use, and configure the room.
Its concise nature is deliberate, aimed at facilitating easy implementation,
but it remains a necessary component for making A/V conference calls.
Without it, we have currently no way to make SFU-based conference calls.
Furthermore, I plan to extend this specification by adding functionality to
retrieve joined users and notify new joiners, as the SFU may choose not to
send all participants' streams.
I'd also like to mention that I have a working implementation of this
protoXEP, utilizing a server component based on Galène.
Regards,
Goffi
So, what are the steps to make an updated proposal acceptable?
I have
already indicated my willingness
to evolve the proposal towards a single Jingle session
Once it uses a single Jingle session, what is even left for the XEP to say
that isn't covered by existing Jingle XEPs? 
26 Aug
26 Aug
7:52 a.m.
So, what are the steps to make an updated proposal
acceptable?
Since you've already signalled you are ok to make the proposal use a single
jingle stream (or a flexible number of streams) instead, that seems like a
good thing here. I'm not sure what will be left after that, but certainly
it would remove my main objection.
8:29 a.m.
Le lundi 26 août 2024, 15:52:34 UTC+2 Stephen Paul Weber a écrit :
Alright, thanks for the update. My primary goal is to create a specification
that enables users to easily use my SFU component. I understand several XMPP
client developers are interested in implementing this feature, and I believe
the current specifications might be too generic or insufficient for a
straightforward implementation. I'll also work on a method to advertise/
retrieve joined users.
If others have alternative strategies or wish to collaborate on this or a
similar specification, please reach out so we can avoid duplicating efforts.
Currently, I'm quite busy and won't be able to submit an updated proposal
within the next several weeks.
Thanks.
Regards,
Goffi
So, what are
the steps to make an updated proposal acceptable?
Since you've already signalled you are ok to make the proposal use a single
jingle stream (or a flexible number of streams) instead, that seems like a
good thing here. I'm not sure what will be left after that, but certainly
it would remove my main objection.
80
days inactive
100
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Daniel Gultsch -
Goffi -
Marvin W -
Sergei Ilinykh -
Stephen Paul Weber