Could you please stop top-posting? It's confusing. Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> 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. > 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 ) We agree there's a need for call flows. We disagree on where to put them. For now I'm putting them in XEP-0166 because as the spec author I think developers will find that less confusing. I don't like the SIP way of writing a spec with no examples and then putting all the examples in another document. After I finish with the scenarios I may put them in another document (or re-use them for the SIP<->Jingle mapping spec), but for now I'm putting them in XEP-0166 because I think that will help developers implement and understand the spec. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
