[Standards] Jingle: one RTP application type to bind them all?

Robert McQueen robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk
Fri May 30 19:45:48 UTC 2008


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 05/29/2008 1:38 PM, Robert McQueen wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I think I'm in favour of this, given the two XEPs seem to be copies of
>> each other. We could just have one RTP/AVP description XEP, with a media
>> type field. 
> 
> Yes I looked into that a while back. For instance we might have this:

...

> So while I think that including the media type as attributes of the
> <content/> element is helpful in some instances, it doesn't give you
> everything you need in order to determine whether you want to accept the
> negotiation or whatever.

Aiee! This seems like crazy over-generalisation to me. Every different
content description markup will have its own way of describing what it
wants to do (if necessary), especially when we do stuff like re-using
existing namespaces like file transfer.

Why would you you want to say in two places you're doing audio, or say
in one place you're doing audio, and somewhere else say you're doing it
over RTP? Not to mention it would invoke yet another registry of
namespaces/values/attributes we have to take care of.

I was thinking of a direct analogy to the media field saying "audio" or
"video" in your m-line in SDP. So like:

<jingle>
  <content name="asdf">
    <description xmlns="...rtp" media="audio">
      <payload-type>
      <payload-type>
    </description>
    <transport/>
  </content>
</jingle>

Then we'd just define some features to explain what media you supported,
like:

urn:...:jingle-rtp#media-audio
urn:...:jingle-rtp#media-video

> /psa

Regards,
Rob



More information about the Standards mailing list