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. Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
