my fault, i was thinking in another way where XEP 166 - represent the core protocol with details on messages , not scenarios and XEP-0208 - call flows with jingle ( more scenarios )
thanx unni On Nov 12, 2007 9:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > >
