[Standards] XEP-0301 Session handling

Gunnar Hellström gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Wed Feb 29 20:11:43 UTC 2012


Peter Saint-Andre skrev 2012-02-29 19:40:
> I really think that if you want to gateway between SIP and XMPP, you
> want to use Jingle. Such gatewaying was one of the core considerations
> for Jingle. Now, I haven't looked at RFC 4103 in quite a while, but we
> can certainly write a spec that defines how to translate between
> XEP-0301 and RFC 4103 (e.g., how to translate the SDP).
Yes, that is likely a good thing to do, but not for the simple example I 
provided.

> Personally I
> don't think we absolutely need a way to complete a formal negotiation
> over XMPP itself, because I tend to think that just sending a chat
> message is a much more natural interaction,
Yes, but the example was a session on the SIP side, and a series of chat 
messages on the XMPP side. And the tricky thing with the example was 
that it was not a human operating the SIP side. A human will decide - 
"ah, now the call is over, so I hang up". Then the gateway can detect 
that and release resources. But if it is a server as in the example, 
with no real logical end of the session, then we must rely on some 
session signaling from the XMPP user to tear down the session.
Can the directed presence "unavailable" signaling described in RFC 6121 
section 5.1 be relied upon for the purpose of ending the session?


/Gunnar




More information about the Standards mailing list