[Jingle] "Future Jingle SIG" Formation
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Jul 22 08:27:30 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
> On 2013-07-21 23:54, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
>> Indeed that was a good one.
>> As some of you might be aware, there is a desire to get to a 1.0
>> version of WebRTC, and there is a heated debate going on about that
>> right now, specifically on the use of SDP as an API surface. I think
>> we should let people active on the W3C public-webrtc and the IETF
>> rtcweb mailing lists know we formed, with a short reasoning of why
>> we thought we needed the SIG and maybe a brief summary of what
>> Jingle really is.
>> The latter seems important to me, because reading those lists,
>> people do seem to know of Jingle, but not much about it. This fuels
>> some interesting side mentions of Jingle that are not accurate. For
>> example, I've seen Jingle, or maybe more specifically XEP-0167,
>> mentioned as merely an XML rendering of SDP. A brief visual
>> inspection on the spec might give you the same idea if you didn't
>> know better.
>> We can do this in a number of ways, but one option might be a XEP acting
>> as an informational introduction to Jingle for SIP people.
>> This has a few advantages over a simple message to the list - first,
>> it's a living document that'll be available in a useful form forever,
>> and second, it would have the support of the XSF as a whole, and
>> therefore act as an official liason document (should we wish to get all
> While I agree that this might be a good idea, this might take a while to do.
> I wanted send this message rather quickly (this week?), as there is quite
> some activity going on right now.
I don't think anything precludes doing both. A mail would form a
likely basis for a XEP.
More information about the Jingle