[Jingle] Typo and possible clarification in XEP 0166

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Apr 20 16:00:33 CDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

That's why I get for working on the train to work in the morning. :)
Yes, I swapped them. Will fix.

On 4/20/09 2:49 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Maybe I am just being slow, but it seems like the text within the
> paragraph is inconsistent. The initial sentence in effect says, low SID
> wins, but the later sentences indicate that the high-SID session is to
> be processed and the low-SID session is to be closed. Did I misinterpret?
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im
> <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im>> wrote:
> On 4/20/09 8:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 4/19/09 10:36 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Good point!
>> Given the possible problems with JID comparison (not everyone does
>> stringprep correctly), I think that comparing session IDs might be
>> safer. But that means we might want to specify the allowable
> characters
>> for session IDs a bit more carefully (e.g., say that they need to
> match
>> the NMTOKEN datatype).
>> ... Well, checking the schema I see that we already say this:
>> <xs:attribute name='sid' type='xs:NMTOKEN' use='required'/>
>> So that would work.
>> Peter
> I've adjusted the text as follows...
> ***
> 7.2.16 Tie Breaking Related to Jingle Actions
> It is possible that the same Jingle action can be sent at the same time
> by two different parties. There are two possible scenarios:
> No existing session
>    If there is no existing session and both parties simultaneously send
> a Jingle session-initiate message, the action with the lower of the two
> session IDs MUST overrule the other action, where by "lower" is meant
> the session ID that is sorted first using "i;octet" collation as
> specified in Section 9.3 of RFC 4790 [27]. The party that receives the
> session-initiate action with the higher of the two session IDs MUST
> acknowledge the action or return an error condition that would normally
> be returned when receiving a session-initiate message, and the party
> that receives the session-initiate action with the lower of the two
> session IDs MUST return a <conflict/> error to the other party, which
> SHOULD include a Jingle-specific condition of <tie-break/>.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Jingle mailing list