[Jingle] do we need Raw UDP?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed May 27 18:27:15 CDT 2009


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

On 5/21/09 4:21 AM, Paul Witty wrote:
> 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
> implementations.
> 
> 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.

I think we have consensus that we want to retain Raw UDP. I raised the
issue only to make sure, but I support this consensus as well.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkodzFMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw4wwCfXHrvHuPW2HI6m6ca2iFb6oWP
4fgAn2vPZ2hJqy4BFqibVi0frbydxOR4
=Y60m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Jingle mailing list