Am 06.01.2015 um 10:59 schrieb XMPP Extensions Editor:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0293 (Jingle
RTP Feedback Negotiation).
Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP extension to negotiate
the use of the Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) with Jingle RTP
sessions
URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0293.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 more important than 0294 since the SAVPF profile
(with feedback) is more awesome than plain old AVP.
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. One issue, as with 0294:
Any type or subtype of feedback message that requires extra
parameters in the a=b form can use the <parameter/> element to
describe it. Any other form of parameter can be store in the CDATA
inside the <rtcp-fb/> element.
I'm (again) not happy with the handling of non key-value parameters.
While reviewing
http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ortc.html#idl-def-RTCRtcpFeedback
I wondered if there is any example of rtcp-fb that uses parameters. ORTC
generally uses parameters instead of subtype and provides a nice list of
rtcp-feedback parameters:
http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ortc.html#idl-def-RTCRtcpFeedback
It seems ccm from
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml#sdp-parameters-19
is the only place where one would not do subtype and use parameters
instead. And that exception can be explicitly mentioned.
I'll see if I can come up with some text for that.
