[standards-jig] Re: [JDEV] Voice over IP

[Joe Hildebrand]

As I said, I'm perfectly willing to move this over to be a JEP, if that's
what the community wants.  If no one objects, in the next few days I'll try
to reformat the doc into a JEP.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Konieczny [mailto:jajcus at bnet.pl] 
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:51 AM
> To: jdev at jabber.org
> Cc: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: [standards-jig] Re: [JDEV] Voice over IP
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:50:35PM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > Yes, you should look more into sdpng.
> > 
> > http://www.dmn.tzi.org/ietf/mmusic/sdp-ng/, and in particular:
> > 
> > 
> http://www.dmn.tzi.org/ietf/mmusic/sdp-ng/drafts/draft-ietf-mm
> usic-sdpng-06.
> > txt
> 
> I have skim read this draft. Generally I like it, but there 
> are things I dont like about it.
> 
> - I would prefer it as JEP rather then IETF draft
> 
> - Why messages are used? It seems OK for invitation, but for nothing
>   more. However I am not sure how to make it well with <iq/> neither.
> 
> - Some stream/proxy negotiation before SDP is used would be nice. But
>   this may be covered by another document (some JEP I hope). Maybe the
>   protocol should allow to use a man in the middle (proxy component of
>   XMPP server), which could proxy UDP streams and rewrite SDP 
> data. For
>   this to work tins recipient addres has to be different than message
>   recipient address.
>   Other solutiwon would be transparent proxying, but I don't like it
>   - this would require servers to inspect all passed messages.
> 
> - Why this draft is so hidden? If you didn't sent links here I will
>   probably not know it exists. Thats why I would prefer it as JEP.
> 
> Greets,
> 	Jacek
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>