[Jingle] Typo and possible clarification in XEP 0166
juberti at google.com
Sun Apr 19 23:36:41 CDT 2009
One thing I noticed is that we don't have any defined semantics for handling
ties on the call initiation (i.e. if A and B call each other at the same
time). This happens more often than you would expect, and there are some
easy things we could do to handle this scenario (e.g. lowest JID or session
id wins). To have this actually work across all clients, we would need to
explicitly specify this. Thoughts?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 4/18/09 3:17 AM, Will Thompson wrote:
> > At <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html#def-action-ties>, the
> > example is incorrectly titled “Initiator returns unexpected-request
> > error”, while in fact the initiator should return <conflict/> and
> > <tie-break/> (as indeed it does in the example.
> Fixed, thanks.
> > Also, it seems strange that “If the content-remove results in zero
> > content definitions for the session, the entity that receives the
> > content-remove SHOULD send a session-terminate action to the other party
> > (since a session with no content definitions is void).” is relegated to
> > a footnote rather than being in the definition of content-remove. It
> > seems like an edge-case worth being aware of.
> It's no longer in a footnote.
> > If I initiate a session with one content, then send a content-add, and
> > you remove the first content and reject the second, presumably the same
> > applies?
> Correct. I've added a sentence about that to the definition of
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Jingle