[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0166 (Jingle)

Unnikrishnan V ukv1977 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 07:32:27 UTC 2007


my fault, i was thinking in another way where

XEP 166 - represent the core protocol with details on messages , not scenarios
and XEP-0208 - call flows with jingle ( more scenarios )

thanx
unni



On Nov 12, 2007 9:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> 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
> basic bootstrapping.
>
> 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.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>



More information about the Standards mailing list