[Standards-JIG] Jingle and ICE

Scott Ludwig scottlu at google.com
Sat Feb 11 00:41:42 UTC 2006

On 2/10/06, Rob Taylor <rob.taylor at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 think what you are asking is, the jingle-audio session type, as
defined in JEP-0167, doesn't allow you to specify multiple streams in
the session description, needed for some audio codecs which require
RTP and RTCP. I agree, this needs to be fixed.

> 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,
> rtcp-video?

Yes. We should move forward with defining this audio-video session type.


> 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 :)
> Thanks,
> Rob Taylor

More information about the Standards mailing list