[Jingle] Typo and possible clarification in XEP 0166

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Apr 21 11:49:19 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/21/09 10:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/20/09 5:10 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert McQueen
>> <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk <mailto: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 [27].
> 
>>     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.
> 
>>     Regards,
>>     Rob
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You're both right. The text about conflicts on session-initiate needs to
> make clear that this is about "similar" sessions (where by "similar" we
> mean that they have roughly the same contents). Let me see if I can come
> up with some good wording about that.

How about this?

   If there is no existing session and both parties simultaneously send
   a Jingle session-initiate message with a content-type that is roughly
   equivalent (e.g., each message requests initiation of a voice call),
   the action with the lower of the two session IDs MUST overrule the
   other action...

Peter

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknt+Q8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxAtQCg2wkXchhiZgDGk/Hht0sLtSIP
BzoAoN9uPVgDDDPItKS33zb6Coq/XF4Z
=QDsK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Jingle mailing list