[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0166 (Jingle)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Nov 13 15:09:05 UTC 2007


Could you please stop top-posting? It's confusing.

Unnikrishnan V wrote:

> 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.

> 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 )

We agree there's a need for call flows. We disagree on where to put
them. For now I'm putting them in XEP-0166 because as the spec author I
think developers will find that less confusing. I don't like the SIP way
of writing a spec with no examples and then putting all the examples in
another document. After I finish with the scenarios I may put them in
another document (or re-use them for the SIP<->Jingle mapping spec), but
for now I'm putting them in XEP-0166 because I think that will help
developers implement and understand the spec.

/psa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20071113/61dd0b02/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list