On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 15:57 +0100, Paul Witty 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'm in favour of simplifying things down so that there's as much in > common between audio/video channels as possible. Though the use of the > word "one" in the above paragraph seems to suggest a single RTP channel, > implying all media being received on a single UDP port. This would be a > bad idea at least where doing Jingle <-> SIP gateways is concerned, as > SIP uses separate UDP streams for each content type, so the gateway > would have to inspect each packet incoming on the Jingle side to > determine the payload type to send it out on the correct port.
What I suggested is to have one "type" of channel (ie one namespace). Not to mix audio and video on the same port, that would be crazy (and I hope I'm not). My goal is only to make jingle as close to SIP as possible so as to make interoperability and future extensions easy. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collabora Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
