[Jingle] do we need Raw UDP?

Justin Karneges justin at affinix.com
Mon May 18 16:45:45 CDT 2009

On Monday 18 May 2009 12:19:49 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Jingle<->SIP gateways should 
support ICE-full.  Anyone designing such a gateway today should not be using 
deprecated approaches.  Heck, ICE was developed firstly for SIP anyway.

Also, there's no such thing as a legacy Jingle<->SIP gateway, so there's no 
reason these gateways can't be designed properly in the first place.


More information about the Jingle mailing list