[Standards-JIG] Jingle and ICE

Rob Taylor rob.taylor at collabora.co.uk
Sat Feb 11 00:30:37 UTC 2006

Scott Ludwig wrote:
>>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.

I must be being a bit stupid ;) I still can't exactly see how I'd
negotiate an RTCP stream and and RTP stream, both being parts of the
same session. Would this require defining a new session type, with a
defined meaning for candidate name=rtcp?

I also don't seem to be able to see how to, e.g. negotiate a session
with synchronised audio and video. Would this be another session type,
with candidate names defined like rtp-audio, rtcp-audio, rtp-video,

I ask as this is something my company will probably be looking to
implement in the not-so-far future.

>>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.

That's good to hear :)

Rob Taylor

More information about the Standards mailing list