[Jingle] 1.1 XEPs (166, 167, 177)
juberti at google.com
Wed Dec 2 01:01:51 CST 2009
Makes sense. Anyone willing to take a stab at defining the contents of
2009/12/1 Olivier Crête <olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk>
> 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
> > > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Jingle