On 06/04/2008 9:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > A forward from Diana Cionoiu of the YATE project. I've cc'd her on this > message and allowed her to post despite the fact that (I think) she's > not on the list. > > /psa > > -------- Original Message -------- > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:06:44 +0300 > From: Diana Cionoiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Jingle: one RTP application type to bind them all? > > Hello Peter, > > I've looked at Olivier's e-mail. > > Jingle ICE-UDP, Protocol Description. I totally agree on this with > Olivier, it's easier to implement in his way. The only note i have here, > is that when you send content-accept you should send it just for the > candidates that have been accepted. This can bit a more complicated to > implement depending on the jingle implementation (Yate doesn't have that > problem).
I think we removed sending content-accept, so your comment may not apply anymore. > Jingle audio, Application format. I totally agree with that. > > Jingle audio. I also agree with Olivier, in SDP the answer to a request, > it's the intersection of the both parties payloads. To make myself more > clear. A sends alaw, g729, g726; B knows g729,g723, mulaw; in this case > SDP answer of B will be g729 payload only. > I also agree with Olivier that alaw and mulaw shoudn't be mandatory. Done. (Will publish updated XEP-0167 in a few minutes.) > Jingle video. I will prefer to have the video codecs in a different > namespace and to keep the width and height. We changed this to include the height and width in payload-type parameters. > In jingle audio you have this situation: "To track changes to XEP-0166, > modified busy scenario and removed unsupported-codecs error." Yes that's gone. > Jingle DTMF. I agree on that with Olivier. Done. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
