Re: [Standards] Confusing Language in XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method)

[Guus der Kinderen]

Hi Larry,

I don't think that this mailinglist is the right place to discuss your
questions.

Although I'm not familiar with your issue, I think you should address them
at Google, not the XMPP standards mailinglist. I suggest that you start at
https://support.google.com/ and see where that gets you.

Regards,

  Guus

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 13:17, larry martz  wrote:

> I have a couple questions... While looking into my Google account after a
> factory reset I was asked to choose what phone I Wanted to restore. But my
> options were exactly the same. In addition Google didn't recognize my phone
> number, I had changed my password the week before but the old one was the
> one I had to use.
> And çan someone explain the G-suite, and how that site can be a administor
> to numerous devices at one time. Last how can I not allow that type of an
> administrator.tnx
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 11:49 AM Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/19 1:01 PM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
>> > On Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 16:50:17 CET Sebastian Riese wrote:
>> >> XEP-0261  uses "bytestream"
>> >> for the overall Jingle session and "session" for the IBB session (at
>> >> least it does so consistently). This is *extremely* confusing. For
>> >>
>> >> example section 2.5 reads:
>> >>> Whenever a party is finished with a particular session within the
>> >>
>> >> bytestream, it SHOULD send an IBB  as shown above. This applies
>> >> to all sessions, including the last one.
>> >>
>> >>> To close the bytestream itself (e.g., because the parties have
>> >>
>> >> finished using all sessions associated with the bytestream), a party
>> >> sends a Jingle session-terminate action as defined in XEP-0166.
>> >>
>> >> This nomenclature is just wrong: The Jingle session manages multiple
>> >> In-Band Bytestream sessions. If you close the Jingle session there may
>> >> be zero or more bytestream sessions that are closed (and perhaps other
>> >> transport sessions – Jingle does not prescribe uniform transports in a
>> >> session).
>> >>
>> >> If you all agree I would make a PR to fix this issue. My proposal is to
>> >> use "session" for Jingle sessions and "bytestream" for IBB sessions, if
>> >> this is deemed to be too confusing also, I could spell out "Jingle
>> >> session" and "IBB session".
>> >
>> > I suggest you take the silence as agreement.
>>
>> WFM
>>
>> ___
>> Standards mailing list
>> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
>> ___
>>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Confusing Language in XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method)

[larry martz]

I have a couple questions... While looking into my Google account after a
factory reset I was asked to choose what phone I Wanted to restore. But my
options were exactly the same. In addition Google didn't recognize my phone
number, I had changed my password the week before but the old one was the
one I had to use.
And çan someone explain the G-suite, and how that site can be a administor
to numerous devices at one time. Last how can I not allow that type of an
administrator.tnx

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 11:49 AM Peter Saint-Andre  On 1/12/19 1:01 PM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> > On Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 16:50:17 CET Sebastian Riese wrote:
> >> XEP-0261  uses "bytestream"
> >> for the overall Jingle session and "session" for the IBB session (at
> >> least it does so consistently). This is *extremely* confusing. For
> >>
> >> example section 2.5 reads:
> >>> Whenever a party is finished with a particular session within the
> >>
> >> bytestream, it SHOULD send an IBB  as shown above. This applies
> >> to all sessions, including the last one.
> >>
> >>> To close the bytestream itself (e.g., because the parties have
> >>
> >> finished using all sessions associated with the bytestream), a party
> >> sends a Jingle session-terminate action as defined in XEP-0166.
> >>
> >> This nomenclature is just wrong: The Jingle session manages multiple
> >> In-Band Bytestream sessions. If you close the Jingle session there may
> >> be zero or more bytestream sessions that are closed (and perhaps other
> >> transport sessions – Jingle does not prescribe uniform transports in a
> >> session).
> >>
> >> If you all agree I would make a PR to fix this issue. My proposal is to
> >> use "session" for Jingle sessions and "bytestream" for IBB sessions, if
> >> this is deemed to be too confusing also, I could spell out "Jingle
> >> session" and "IBB session".
> >
> > I suggest you take the silence as agreement.
>
> WFM
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Confusing Language in XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method)

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 1/12/19 1:01 PM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> On Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 16:50:17 CET Sebastian Riese wrote:
>> XEP-0261  uses "bytestream"
>> for the overall Jingle session and "session" for the IBB session (at
>> least it does so consistently). This is *extremely* confusing. For
>>
>> example section 2.5 reads:
>>> Whenever a party is finished with a particular session within the
>>
>> bytestream, it SHOULD send an IBB  as shown above. This applies
>> to all sessions, including the last one.
>>
>>> To close the bytestream itself (e.g., because the parties have
>>
>> finished using all sessions associated with the bytestream), a party
>> sends a Jingle session-terminate action as defined in XEP-0166.
>>
>> This nomenclature is just wrong: The Jingle session manages multiple
>> In-Band Bytestream sessions. If you close the Jingle session there may
>> be zero or more bytestream sessions that are closed (and perhaps other
>> transport sessions – Jingle does not prescribe uniform transports in a
>> session).
>>
>> If you all agree I would make a PR to fix this issue. My proposal is to
>> use "session" for Jingle sessions and "bytestream" for IBB sessions, if
>> this is deemed to be too confusing also, I could spell out "Jingle
>> session" and "IBB session".
> 
> I suggest you take the silence as agreement.

WFM



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Confusing Language in XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method)

[Jonas Schäfer]

On Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 16:50:17 CET Sebastian Riese wrote:
> XEP-0261  uses "bytestream"
> for the overall Jingle session and "session" for the IBB session (at
> least it does so consistently). This is *extremely* confusing. For
> 
> example section 2.5 reads:
> > Whenever a party is finished with a particular session within the
> 
> bytestream, it SHOULD send an IBB  as shown above. This applies
> to all sessions, including the last one.
> 
> > To close the bytestream itself (e.g., because the parties have
> 
> finished using all sessions associated with the bytestream), a party
> sends a Jingle session-terminate action as defined in XEP-0166.
> 
> This nomenclature is just wrong: The Jingle session manages multiple
> In-Band Bytestream sessions. If you close the Jingle session there may
> be zero or more bytestream sessions that are closed (and perhaps other
> transport sessions – Jingle does not prescribe uniform transports in a
> session).
> 
> If you all agree I would make a PR to fix this issue. My proposal is to
> use "session" for Jingle sessions and "bytestream" for IBB sessions, if
> this is deemed to be too confusing also, I could spell out "Jingle
> session" and "IBB session".

I suggest you take the silence as agreement.

kind regards,
Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

[Standards] Confusing Language in XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method)

[Sebastian Riese]

XEP-0261  uses "bytestream"
for the overall Jingle session and "session" for the IBB session (at
least it does so consistently). This is *extremely* confusing. For
example section 2.5 reads:

> Whenever a party is finished with a particular session within the
bytestream, it SHOULD send an IBB  as shown above. This applies
to all sessions, including the last one.
>
> To close the bytestream itself (e.g., because the parties have
finished using all sessions associated with the bytestream), a party
sends a Jingle session-terminate action as defined in XEP-0166.

This nomenclature is just wrong: The Jingle session manages multiple
In-Band Bytestream sessions. If you close the Jingle session there may
be zero or more bytestream sessions that are closed (and perhaps other
transport sessions – Jingle does not prescribe uniform transports in a
session).

If you all agree I would make a PR to fix this issue. My proposal is to
use "session" for Jingle sessions and "bytestream" for IBB sessions, if
this is deemed to be too confusing also, I could spell out "Jingle
session" and "IBB session".

kind regards,
Sebastian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___