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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Dec 2 12:48:25 CST 2009


On 12/2/09 11:22 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/2/09 10:39 AM, Justin Karneges wrote:
>> On Wednesday 02 December 2009 09:01:05 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 12/2/09 12:01 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>>> Makes sense. Anyone willing to take a stab at defining the contents of
>>>> <avpf>?
>>> My question is: do we need this for the 1.1 specs? The AVPF stuff seems
>>> like a new feature that requires some further thought.
>> Even if we don't put this in just yet, we still ought to get the current RTP 
>> profile stuff squared away in 1.1.  That is, clarify that a content is only 
>> ever RTP/AVP or RTP/SAVP.
> 
> I think that RTP/AVP as the default was assumed back when we had the
> profile attribute, and <encryption/> signals RTP/SAVP. But I'll add a
> sentence to clarify that.

I've added the following paragraph to the section on mapping to SDP:

###

By default the SDP <transport> MUST be considered "RTP/AVP" as defined
in RFC 3550. If the initiation request contains a <security/> element to
specify security preconditions for the session, then the SDP <transport>
MUST instead be considered "RTP/SAVP" as defined in RFC 3711. Future
versions of this specification might define how to use other SDP
transports, such as "RTP/AVPF" and "RTP/SAVPF" as defined in RFC 4585
[14] and RFC 5124 [15] respectively.

###

Peter

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20091202/afb17bb8/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Jingle mailing list