Am 06.01.2015 um 10:53 schrieb XMPP Extensions Editor:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0294 (Jingle
RTP Header Extensions Negotiation).
Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP extension to negotiate
the use of the use of RTP Header Extension as defined by RFC 5285
with Jingle RTP sessions
URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0294.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2015-01-20.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send your
feedback to the [email protected] discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to
clarify an existing protocol?
It is necessary to provide a complete mapping of WebRTC 1.0s SDP to
Jingle and back even though RFC 5285 is technically optional per
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and
requirements?
Yes.
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?
Done. Twice, both in strophe.jingle and stanza.io (even though I think
the latter might have been done by lance).
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
No.
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Yes.
Don't we have an "additional comments"?
Any type of RTP Header Extension that requires extra parameters in the
a=b form can embed <parameter/> elements to describe it. Any other form
of parameter can be stored in the CDATA inside the <rtp-hdrext/> element.
I don't think this is necessary, havent seen any example where this
would be necessary. Including stuff as CDATA is inconsistent with the
way it's generally done in Jingle (even though there is some confusion
about that). Probably best to remove this before making it draft.
