[Jingle] Typo and possible clarification in XEP 0166
juberti at google.com
Mon Apr 20 18:10:01 CDT 2009
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert McQueen <
robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > 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 .
> Presumably Justin's issue is just about people audio calling each other
> at the same time. So, this should probably contain wording about the
> same content type(s). If I send you a file when you're calling me,
> neither should fail. I almost wonder if this shouldn't be in the RTP
> description XEP, given I can't think why the semantics are otherwise
> desirable, and I do also wonder whether these semantics are specific to
> RTP calling clients and should be carefully worded to avoid making
> certain implementations (which do trunking or other call-switching
> activities?) XEP-incompliant by design.
I mostly agree. I think the key thing here is that the conflict only occurs
when the sessions are logically similar. This is the case for simultaneous
audio or video calls, but could also be the case for other things like an
invitation to play a game, establish a direct connection, etc. So I don't
totally buy that this should go into the RTP XEP.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Jingle