[Standards-JIG] Jingle: tracking stanzas

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Tue Feb 14 22:40:51 UTC 2006

What are we trying to achieve? Stanza tracking or session tracking? I am
under the impression session tracking is more appropriate in many
voice/media use cases. Similar to a call refrence.

IMHO embedding any logic in an identifier is not very scalable. I personally
prefer having the sid as the only meaningful Jingle reference. And frankly
speaking it is not going to create that much of an overhead if we limit
ourseleves to the sid only in result or error.

<iq from='gw.shakespeare.lit' to='juliet at capulet.com' type='result'
  <jingle xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle'

-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:12:18 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Subject: [Standards-JIG] Jingle: tracking stanzas
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Message-ID: <43F22B92.2060208 at jabber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hash: SHA1

In XMPP, you track packets based on the 'id' attribute. However, those
are generated by a client. If an intermediary (such as Asterisk) wants
to keep track of all the Jingle traffic flowing around, it may want
something more advanced. Many Jingle-related stanzas include a <jingle/>
child element with a session ID ('sid') attribute. However, that does
not normally apply to IQ-results and IQ-errors because RFC 3920 says
it's optional to include the original child element(s) when sending IQ
stanzas of type "result" and "error". While it might be nice for
intermediaries to have that 'sid' on each and every stanza, it would get
quite verbose. I think we probably have the 'sid' on the packets that
matter, but discussion is welcome from implementors on the topic.


More information about the Standards mailing list