[Jingle] Typo and possible clarification in XEP 0166
juberti at google.com
Tue Apr 21 18:03:19 CDT 2009
"Roughly equivalent" is interesting terminology for a standards document,
but overall it looks good.
Also I'm not sure this is a MUST, perhaps there are applications that will
want to preserve the double-busy that you would get in the telephone world,
so maybe SHOULD is more appropriate.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>wrote:
> -----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
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> >> 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 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