[Jingle] do we need Raw UDP?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon May 18 14:19:49 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/18/09 1:04 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 12:59 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> The subject of this message says it all: do we really need Raw UDP, or
>> is XEP-0177 useful only for bootstrapping and unit testing? Given that
>> the Raw UDP candidate will be included in ICE negotiation anyway, I
>> don't see much of a need for XEP-0177 at this point, so I'm wondering if
>> perhaps we retract it and proceed only with XEP-0176 (ICE-UDP) as the
>> preferred datagram transport.
> 
> I guess one argument for rawudp is integrating XMPP support into legacy
> sip gateways without having to implement Full ICE there (since it XMPP
> forbids ICE-lite).

As far as I can see, that's the one and only argument. I'm not saying
it's a bad argument, just trying to figure out what's truly needed here.
The concern someone expressed to me is that Jingle client developers
will blithly implement only Raw UDP and won't be able to interoperate or
really do much of anything useful.

Peter

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoRtNUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxbSACgiQ4hH6m202Y9ZfhYEbzbWw0O
WYoAoNy4R6EVt3fC46ClN65eKcWSdSKe
=9hIL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Jingle mailing list