[Standards-JIG] Jingle and ICE

Scott Ludwig scottlu at google.com
Sat Feb 11 00:06:34 UTC 2006


> So am I understanding you correctly that you're saying the way to
> associate an RTP stream with its corresponding RTCP stream is by name?
>
> Do you have a proposed naming schema?

Sessions are described by "session descriptions". A session
description is a session type specific custom namespaced description
of a given session. An example of a session type is JEP-0167, for
audio. Another may be file sharing. Still another may be
whiteboarding, etc. Those session types will name the streams by
whatever convention they choose, including describing the streams in
the session description XML if needed. For this reason, there doesn't
need to be a schema for stream naming from Jingle's point of view,
since it is a matter for the session type.

> The one thing that worries me is that although Jingle looks correct, it
> doesn't map exactly to ICE-06. For the SIP<->XMPP gateway work it
> strikes me as this could be an issue, as ICE aware SIP devices wont be
> able to talk to ICE aware XMPP devices, as the SIP devices will be
> expecting active candidates signalling and such subtleties as that I
> mention above.. Are there discussions underway with J. Rosenberg to get
> a consensus on these technical details?

We want the same thing. Jingle implements ICE algorithmically, with
extensions. There are syntax differences with ICE-06. When we started
there was ICE-03, ICE-04, ICE-05, now ICE-06. There will probably be
an ICE-07. When ICE stops moving around on the table and gets more
adopted by SIP implementors, we'll build ICE syntax compatibility into
Jingle. We have a way to do this cleanly which we will propose in
order to future proof Jingle.

>
> Thanks,
> Rob Taylor
>



More information about the Standards mailing list