[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0166 (Jingle)
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Nov 13 05:20:27 UTC 2007
Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> It will be nice if you can shed more light on this modification ( need
> for modification ). Reason i felt is, we already have XEP-0208:
> Bootstrapping Implementation of Jingle which is very incomplete. My 2
> cents for Scenarios for various session flows goes to XEP-208 than
> XEP-0166 . XEP-0166 should act as core jingle spec ( explaining well
> the protocol ).
I have never heard a developer complain about too many examples. We try
to have a lot of examples in our specs so they are developer-friendly. I
don't think XEP-0166 had enough examples, so I added more. And adding
examples helps us make sure that the protocol is correct -- e.g., what
exactly does happen when one party sends a content-modify? Furthermore,
I plan to read through both RFC 3261 and RFC 3665 over the next few days
so I can add even more examples by comparing the Jingle session flows to
various SIP call flows.
As to XEP-0208, I don't think it should go into depth on anything but
Eventually (perhaps even soon) I will write an Internet-Draft that
provides a mapping between Jingle and SIP for various scenarios, as I
have done for XMPP<->SIP for addresses, presence, single IMs, and most
recently chat sessions. All of these documents should help us understand
the protocols more clearly, assist developers, and make sure that the
protocols are correct.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards