Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Philipp Hancke]

Am 14.03.19 um 15:52 schrieb Xander Dumaine:

Genesys implemented XEP-0353 for both voice and video calling, and we've been 
very happy with it.

The following code uses it on top of code written by Lance and  for 
jingle.js and stanza.io

https://github.com/purecloudlabs/purecloud-streaming-client-webrtc-sessions/blob/master/src/index.js
https://github.com/purecloudlabs/purecloud-streaming-client-webrtc-sessions/blob/master/src/index.js#L575-L635
https://github.com/xdumaine/jingle-stanza/blob/master/stanzas/jingleMessage.js

I'm unable to share the XMPP server implementations, but we've implemented in 
two separate components, one which coordinates voice calls and is a bridge 
between XMPP and SIP to a PBX, and one which coordinates video conferences 
between both SIP backed and XMPP backed media servers. We also use this for p2p 
video calls.

Thanks,
Xander Dumaine


Looks like the mailing list ate this so reposting. Thanks for the 
feedback Xander!

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 3/14/19 11:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:14, Peter Saint-Andre  > wrote:
> 
> On 3/14/19 5:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer  
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >     On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre
> mailto:stpe...@mozilla.com>
> >     >> wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active
> co-author
> >     >> (preferably an implementor of the spec).
> >     >
> >     > Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council
> >     aren’t allowed to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors
> >     request it or the authors abandon the XEP.
> >
> >     Kev,
> >
> >     I think this is a very narrow reading of the new text, and I don't
> >     agree
> >     that this says the Approving Body cannot issue (=/= trigger) a
> Last
> >     Call, via the Editor, if it so sees fit. What the changed text
> is meant
> >     to ensure is that once a Last Call is issued, there's
> somebody, either
> >     an author or document shepherd, to process feedback of that
> Last Call
> >     and during the approval process of the Approving Body. And
> that there's
> >     a defined way to propose advancement by authors, or others in
> case it
> >     appears that the authors are no longer interested in such
> advancement.
> >
> >     If you think this new wording suggests that the Approving Body
> (in this
> >     case Council) is no longer in full control of the process,
> then please
> >     propose changes so this can be rectified.
> >
> >
> > I think the way that XEP-0001 is currently written suggests that
> if the
> > Council triggered a Last Call without the author(s) involved, the
> > Author(s) could complain on the grounds that we have not followed
> > XEP-0001 as written.
> 
> Has this ever happened or is it purely hypothetical?
> 
> 
> It is hypothetical. Hopefully it will remain so.
>  
> 
> > Since we do not have a complaints procedure, what happens then is
> > anyone's guess. (I think they need to complain to the Board, and
> if that
> > fails to achieve a resolution, to the Members - but that's a
> suggestion
> > and is in no way supported by any of our process documents).
> 
> It seems to me that the Board is the appropriate escalation path,
> although raising an issue among the membership would also work.
> 
> Personally I don't see the need for every possible eventuality to be
> captured in process documents...
> 
> 
> No, me neither, but I go back and forth over whether we should have some
> kind of appeals process for where people think Council actions are
> "Wrong" - it'd be painful to have to figure one out on the fly, anyway.

IMHO the Board should be the body to which appeals are directed, and I
will write that up for discussion among the membership. Naturally, if
the members don't like how the Board has handled something, they have
other remedies.

Peter
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Dave Cridland]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:12, Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:

> On 3/14/19 6:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:25, Ненахов Андрей
> > mailto:andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > People send comments on the list, and we answer their questions,
> > propose
> > modifications to the text of the document, submit or process pull
> > requests, etc. For a small spec like this, it should be pretty
> > simple.
> > Plus if you are a co-author if you will be famous forever. ;-)
> >
> >
> > Ok, I think I can handle it. Plus, vanity is my favourite sin.
> >
> >
> > It used to be mine until Carly Simon wrote a song about me.
>
> Dave, how old were you in 1971? ;-)
>
>
She was always ahead of her time.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Dave Cridland]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:14, Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:

> On 3/14/19 5:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre  > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active
> co-author
> > >> (preferably an implementor of the spec).
> > >
> > > Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council
> > aren’t allowed to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors
> > request it or the authors abandon the XEP.
> >
> > Kev,
> >
> > I think this is a very narrow reading of the new text, and I don't
> > agree
> > that this says the Approving Body cannot issue (=/= trigger) a Last
> > Call, via the Editor, if it so sees fit. What the changed text is
> meant
> > to ensure is that once a Last Call is issued, there's somebody,
> either
> > an author or document shepherd, to process feedback of that Last Call
> > and during the approval process of the Approving Body. And that
> there's
> > a defined way to propose advancement by authors, or others in case it
> > appears that the authors are no longer interested in such
> advancement.
> >
> > If you think this new wording suggests that the Approving Body (in
> this
> > case Council) is no longer in full control of the process, then
> please
> > propose changes so this can be rectified.
> >
> >
> > I think the way that XEP-0001 is currently written suggests that if the
> > Council triggered a Last Call without the author(s) involved, the
> > Author(s) could complain on the grounds that we have not followed
> > XEP-0001 as written.
>
> Has this ever happened or is it purely hypothetical?
>
>
It is hypothetical. Hopefully it will remain so.


> > Since we do not have a complaints procedure, what happens then is
> > anyone's guess. (I think they need to complain to the Board, and if that
> > fails to achieve a resolution, to the Members - but that's a suggestion
> > and is in no way supported by any of our process documents).
>
> It seems to me that the Board is the appropriate escalation path,
> although raising an issue among the membership would also work.
>
> Personally I don't see the need for every possible eventuality to be
> captured in process documents...
>

No, me neither, but I go back and forth over whether we should have some
kind of appeals process for where people think Council actions are "Wrong"
- it'd be painful to have to figure one out on the fly, anyway. Based on my
actions so far, I don't feel this way strongly enough to act, obviously. :-)

What I do feel relatively strongly about is that we should document what we
do, and in return do what we document. This seems to me to be a basic tenet
of the "Open" bit of "Open Standards".

So we've followed the process, and I'll get a vote for Last Call on '353
done next meeting.

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 3/14/19 5:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer  > wrote:
> 
> On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre  > wrote:
> >>
> >> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author
> >> (preferably an implementor of the spec).
> >
> > Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council
> aren’t allowed to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors
> request it or the authors abandon the XEP.
> 
> Kev,
> 
> I think this is a very narrow reading of the new text, and I don't
> agree
> that this says the Approving Body cannot issue (=/= trigger) a Last
> Call, via the Editor, if it so sees fit. What the changed text is meant
> to ensure is that once a Last Call is issued, there's somebody, either
> an author or document shepherd, to process feedback of that Last Call
> and during the approval process of the Approving Body. And that there's
> a defined way to propose advancement by authors, or others in case it
> appears that the authors are no longer interested in such advancement.
> 
> If you think this new wording suggests that the Approving Body (in this
> case Council) is no longer in full control of the process, then please
> propose changes so this can be rectified.
> 
> 
> I think the way that XEP-0001 is currently written suggests that if the
> Council triggered a Last Call without the author(s) involved, the
> Author(s) could complain on the grounds that we have not followed
> XEP-0001 as written.

Has this ever happened or is it purely hypothetical?

> Since we do not have a complaints procedure, what happens then is
> anyone's guess. (I think they need to complain to the Board, and if that
> fails to achieve a resolution, to the Members - but that's a suggestion
> and is in no way supported by any of our process documents).

It seems to me that the Board is the appropriate escalation path,
although raising an issue among the membership would also work.

Personally I don't see the need for every possible eventuality to be
captured in process documents...

Peter

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 3/14/19 6:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:25, Ненахов Андрей
> mailto:andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru>>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> People send comments on the list, and we answer their questions,
> propose
> modifications to the text of the document, submit or process pull
> requests, etc. For a small spec like this, it should be pretty
> simple.
> Plus if you are a co-author if you will be famous forever. ;-)
> 
> 
> Ok, I think I can handle it. Plus, vanity is my favourite sin.  
> 
> 
> It used to be mine until Carly Simon wrote a song about me.

Dave, how old were you in 1971? ;-)

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Dave Cridland]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:25, Ненахов Андрей 
wrote:

>
> People send comments on the list, and we answer their questions, propose
>> modifications to the text of the document, submit or process pull
>> requests, etc. For a small spec like this, it should be pretty simple.
>> Plus if you are a co-author if you will be famous forever. ;-)
>>
>
> Ok, I think I can handle it. Plus, vanity is my favourite sin.
>

It used to be mine until Carly Simon wrote a song about me.

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Ненахов Андрей]

> People send comments on the list, and we answer their questions, propose
> modifications to the text of the document, submit or process pull
> requests, etc. For a small spec like this, it should be pretty simple.
> Plus if you are a co-author if you will be famous forever. ;-)
>

Ok, I think I can handle it. Plus, vanity is my favourite sin.


-- 
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
https://redsolution.com 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Dave Cridland]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer  wrote:

> On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author
> >> (preferably an implementor of the spec).
> >
> > Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council aren’t
> allowed to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors request it or
> the authors abandon the XEP.
>
> Kev,
>
> I think this is a very narrow reading of the new text, and I don't agree
> that this says the Approving Body cannot issue (=/= trigger) a Last
> Call, via the Editor, if it so sees fit. What the changed text is meant
> to ensure is that once a Last Call is issued, there's somebody, either
> an author or document shepherd, to process feedback of that Last Call
> and during the approval process of the Approving Body. And that there's
> a defined way to propose advancement by authors, or others in case it
> appears that the authors are no longer interested in such advancement.
>
> If you think this new wording suggests that the Approving Body (in this
> case Council) is no longer in full control of the process, then please
> propose changes so this can be rectified.


I think the way that XEP-0001 is currently written suggests that if the
Council triggered a Last Call without the author(s) involved, the Author(s)
could complain on the grounds that we have not followed XEP-0001 as written.

Since we do not have a complaints procedure, what happens then is anyone's
guess. (I think they need to complain to the Board, and if that fails to
achieve a resolution, to the Members - but that's a suggestion and is in no
way supported by any of our process documents).

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Philipp Hancke]

Am 13.03.19 um 22:16 schrieb Kevin Smith:




On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:

I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author
(preferably an implementor of the spec).


Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council aren’t allowed 
to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors request it or the authors 
abandon the XEP.


with my authors hat on: requesting a LC.



/K




Peter


On 3/13/19 10:53 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
Philipp, Peter,

Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?

Andrew,

If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call feedback?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Ненахов Андрей
mailto:andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru>>
wrote:

Hello, everyone.

Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
 to draft, please?

We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.


--
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
https://redsolution.com 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org

___


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Kevin Smith]

> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:
> 
> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author
> (preferably an implementor of the spec).

Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council aren’t allowed 
to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors request it or the authors 
abandon the XEP. 

/K


> 
> Peter
> 
>> On 3/13/19 10:53 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Philipp, Peter,
>> 
>> Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?
>> 
>> Andrew,
>> 
>> If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call feedback?
>> 
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Ненахов Андрей
>> mailto:andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>Hello, everyone.
>> 
>>Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
>> to draft, please?
>> 
>>We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
>>notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.
>> 
>> 
>>-- 
>>Andrew Nenakhov
>>CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
>>https://redsolution.com 
>>___
>>Standards mailing list
>>Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
>>
>>___
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Standards mailing list
>> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
>> ___
>> 
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Philipp Hancke]

Lance, I think we had an implementation of it somewhere?

Am 13.03.19 um 14:27 schrieb Daniel Gultsch:

To draft?! If anything we should probably bring it back to Experimental.
I suggest you implement it and then provide feedback on how well it performed.

I’ve looked into into that XEP in the past (in regards to jingle voice
calls) and I don’t see anything wrong with it. However we need actual
experience implementing it before we can move something to draft.

cheers
Daniel

Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Ненахов Андрей
:


Hello, everyone.

Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to draft, please?

We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push notifications, 
and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.


--
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
https://redsolution.com
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 3/13/19 11:46 AM, Ненахов Андрей wrote:
> 
> 
> ср, 13 мар. 2019 г. в 21:54, Dave Cridland  >:
> 
> Philipp, Peter,
> 
> Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call
> feedback?
> 
> 
> Probably, I can, but I don't know exactly what exactly 'handle
> processing Last Call feedback' means (Sorry for my ignorance). We do
> plan to implement it, though.

People send comments on the list, and we answer their questions, propose
modifications to the text of the document, submit or process pull
requests, etc. For a small spec like this, it should be pretty simple.
Plus if you are a co-author if you will be famous forever. ;-)

Peter

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Ненахов Андрей]

ср, 13 мар. 2019 г. в 21:54, Dave Cridland :

> Philipp, Peter,
>
> Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?
>
> Andrew,
>
> If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call feedback?
>

Probably, I can, but I don't know exactly what exactly 'handle processing
Last Call feedback' means (Sorry for my ignorance). We do plan to implement
it, though.

-- 
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
https://redsolution.com 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Peter Saint-Andre]

I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author
(preferably an implementor of the spec).

Peter

On 3/13/19 10:53 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Philipp, Peter,
> 
> Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call feedback?
> 
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Ненахов Андрей
> mailto:andrew.nenak...@redsolution.ru>>
> wrote:
> 
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
>  to draft, please?
> 
> We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
> notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Nenakhov
> CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
> https://redsolution.com 
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
> 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Dave Cridland]

Philipp, Peter,

Do either of you want to remain involved with this one?

Andrew,

If they don't, would you be able to handle processing Last Call feedback?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Ненахов Андрей 
wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
>  to draft, please?
>
> We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
> notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Nenakhov
> CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
> https://redsolution.com 
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Ненахов Андрей]

Well, I was writing on heels of discussion,

Wednesday, 13 March, 2019
[18:07:34] Zash:
Andrew Nenakhov: Is 0353 in need of anything specific or could it be
advanced as-is?
[18:09:12] Andrew Nenakhov:
Zash, my developer says he did everything as is in 0353, so it's probably
good to use
[18:10:20] Zash:
Andrew Nenakhov: If they have any feedback then that would be good to share
with the list. Even if it's just "It's fine, it could made Draft"

If it's should be read as 'experimental', ok.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 18:29 Daniel Gultsch,  wrote:

> To draft?! If anything we should probably bring it back to Experimental.
> I suggest you implement it and then provide feedback on how well it
> performed.
>
> I’ve looked into into that XEP in the past (in regards to jingle voice
> calls) and I don’t see anything wrong with it. However we need actual
> experience implementing it before we can move something to draft.
>
> cheers
> Daniel
>
> Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Ненахов Андрей
> :
> >
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to draft,
> please?
> >
> > We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
> notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Nenakhov
> > CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
> > https://redsolution.com
> > ___
> > Standards mailing list
> > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> > ___
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Daniel Gultsch]

To draft?! If anything we should probably bring it back to Experimental.
I suggest you implement it and then provide feedback on how well it performed.

I’ve looked into into that XEP in the past (in regards to jingle voice
calls) and I don’t see anything wrong with it. However we need actual
experience implementing it before we can move something to draft.

cheers
Daniel

Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Ненахов Андрей
:
>
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to draft, please?
>
> We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push notifications, 
> and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Nenakhov
> CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
> https://redsolution.com
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

[Standards] Move XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation to Draft

[Ненахов Андрей]

Hello, everyone.

Could we please advance XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
 to draft, please?

We need it because bare XEP-0166 does not work well with push
notifications, and does not support 'ring an all devices' behaviour.


-- 
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, Redsolution, Inc.
https://redsolution.com 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___