On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 20:38 +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > Back in April, Olivier Crête questioned whether we really need separate > > application types for RTP audio (XEP-0167) and RFC video (XEP-0180): > > > > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-April/018554.html > > > > Olivier suggested that we could simply negotiate one RTP "channel" and > > use it for anything that RTP can do -- voice, video, real-time text (RFC > > 4103), etc. I have not seen a lot of enthusiasm for this idea, but I > > would like to make sure that we have consensus on keeping things as-is > > before moving forward with the Jingle specs. If you have feedback on > > this issue, please weigh in on the [email protected] list. > > I think I'm in favour of this, given the two XEPs seem to be copies of > each other. We could just have one RTP/AVP description XEP, with a media > type field. I discussed this earlier with Peter:
> Robert McQueen: and I /really/ don't think you need a profile thing > Robert McQueen: we definitely imply RTP/AVP - and if we're not doing AVP > we're doing maybe SAVP, in which case we need to signal some keys > Robert McQueen: so we can cross that bridge when we come to it - maybe > throw a sub-namespace in with srtp key negotiation stuff in it Apart from RTP/AVP, there is also RTP/AVPF (and the RTP/SAVPF) defined in RFC4585, that is basically the same as RTP/AVPF but with more frequent rtcp feedback. That RFC also defines the extra "a:rtcp-fb" media attribute... which could be added to the XEP. That said, I don't know if anyone actually implements this or how useful it is. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collabora Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
