[Standards] Jingle (XEP-0166): Missing unsupported-security action

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Jul 28 01:33:08 UTC 2017

On 7/27/17 3:41 PM, Paul Schaub wrote:
> Hi!
> Jingle defines the reasons "unsupported-transports" and
> "unsupported-application" that are used to signal, that one client does
> not support any of the offered description types or transport methods
> (XEP-0166 Examples 23-26).
> First of all I'd propose to rename "unsupported-application" and
> "failed-application" to "unsupported-description" and
> "failed-description" to make it clear, that those refer to the
> description component.

Changing the names for aesthetic reasons doesn't seem worthwhile.

> Also, how should I signal, that I do not support the security component?
> Currently there is no "unsupported-security" and "failed-security"
> reason. Should such thing maybe be added in?

That seems like a good idea.

I have a GitHub branch where I was working on a large set of revisions
to the Jingle specs, but unfortunately life got even busier for me and
I've let it languish. If there's enough interest I can finish it off.


More information about the Standards mailing list