Hi! Is this moreless the clients internal implementation issue, than related protocol.
Cheers, <Juha> >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ext Lauri Kaila >Sent: 28 November, 2007 13:13 >To: XMPP Extension Discussion List >Subject: Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0166 (Jingle) > >Hi all > >There's one point in the protocol I'm not very fond of: >returning application-level errors (especially >unsupported-content) with iq response to session-initiate. >Because if one implements XEP-0166 and >XEP-0167 (and video, file transfer, whiteboard, etc) as a >separate logical modules, it means that the generic Jingle >code must consult the upper-level module before it can send IQ >response. The generic Jingle code must have a separate state >for a not-acked session, instad of making the transaction >"atomic" by sending ack immediately. > >The alternative would be to ack session-initiate always, and >have a unsupported-content info carried with >session-terminate. I believe that would be easier to >implement, although the protocol flow may not seem optimal. > >Now I had my say. If you don't find this issue serious enough >(or even an issue) - fine, I'm quite happy with the current spec. > >-lauri >
