[Jingle] do we need Raw UDP?
paulrw at codian.com
Thu May 21 05:21:20 CDT 2009
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).
We gateway Jingle <-> SIP by terminating the media at the gateway, which
allows us to perform ICE on the Jingle side even when the SIP side does
not support it. However, the design of Jingle to be SDP means that we
don't need to do this, and it would be nice to avoid doing so where
possible, but this requires Raw UDP support for almost all existing SIP
In my opinion, we should keep both, with wording in XEP-0177 that
clients which support Raw UDP SHOULD support ICE UDP. Even if it is
only useful for bootstrapping, unit testing and talking to gateways,
it's still useful.
More information about the Jingle