[Standards-JIG] UPDATED: JEP-0111 (TINS)

Nanda Kutty nanda at wingmanteam.com
Tue Apr 6 00:44:46 UTC 2004

Has anyone addressed how the TINS protocol and
STUN protocol can intermingle? 

For example, both users might exist behing a NAT
router. In which case, they might use STUN to determine
their 'private' and 'public' addresses. They
should be submitting BOTH the addressing during the
negotiation phase since the other party might
exist within the same subnet (in which case it uses
the private address) or it might not (in which
case it uses the public address). Is this something
that is should be part of the inlined SDP or
does TINS need to be extended to include this?

nanda kutty
nanda at wingmanteam.com

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
[mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:42 PM
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Subject: [Standards-JIG] UPDATED: JEP-0111 (TINS)

I've fixed TINS so that it uses <message/> rather than <iq/> -- we can't
use <iq/> because SIP allows multiple responses after a request, which
does not map to the semantics as defined in XMPP Core.



Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php

Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list