[Jingle] 1.1 XEPs (166, 167, 177)

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Tue Dec 1 07:36:22 CST 2009


On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 15:51 -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 09:11:27 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > On 11/25/09 11:42 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > > I think the reason the RTP profile is not passed in the XML is because
> > > the profile is defined rigidly in the Jingle RTP spec (or at least, it is
> > > supposed to be).
> >
> > By that do you mean XEP-0167 allows only "RTP/AVP" and any other profile
> > would need to be defined in a separate spec?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > > Probably the XEP should say that component 1 is "AVP" and component 2
> > > is "AVPF".
> >
> > XEP-0167 currently says:
> >
> >    The component numbered "1" MUST be associated with RTP and the
> >    component numbered "2" MUST be associated with RTCP.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that we clarify the text to explicitly state that
> > AVPF is a (or the only) component that's associated with RTCP, with a
> > reference to RFC 4585?
> 
> I'm not 100% sure, but I believe each component is assigned a profile.  So 
> component 1 would always be "RTP/AVP" and component 2 would always 
> be "RTP/AVPF" (which I think is more or less synonymous with RTCP).
> 
> This as opposed to the entire session being assigned a single profile.
> 
> But probably an RTP guru should confirm this.

Really, having profile per component doesn't make sense. Since the
profile defines the components... Also, the profile specifies stuff like
how the payload types are negotiated/specified, etc. It is definitely a
per-content thing.

-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20091201/e6d46bdf/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Jingle mailing list