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

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Wed Dec 2 00:21:24 CST 2009

HOn Tue, 2009-12-01 at 15:16 +0000, Robert McQueen wrote:
> Justin Uberti wrote:
> > I agree with Rob's general notion that we should not duplicate stuff in
> > our signaling, but RTCP does not automatically mean AVPF. AVPF defines
> > special rules for how RTCP can be transmitted, but it is still possible
> > to send RTCP using the old (AVP) rules.
> > 
> > Therefore, I think we need some way in the signaling to indicate the use
> > of AVPF.
> +1 - this is what I was getting at. Signal the stuff we're actually
> missing, not throw in misc SDP stuff which is redundant to what we
> actually have. We just want a little <avpf/> handshake in the same way
> we do for encryption, I guess? One in the offer to say we want to use
> it, one in the answer to say we will?

Having a <avpf/> tag is probably not a bad idea because we need to
negotiate more than just the use oif but may be interesting to have
something like that because with AVPF you want to be able to negotiate
what kind of feedback is supported. So only saying "we support AVPF" is
not enough.

This is all explained in RFC 4585 section 4.

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/20091202/04b15cf0/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Jingle mailing list