Can't we use xep-0215 and add type dns also or needed application type
?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:56 AM Ralph Meijer wrote:
>
> On 13/03/2019 15.09, Travis Burtrum wrote:
> > On 3/13/19 3:40 AM, Philipp Hörist wrote:
> >> Whats the use case for this XEP?
> >> Until now i only needed DNS query
Better we look on ichat or get from ichat people, its already implemented
with a great beauty, even voice/video conferences - look at leopard version
- its has more fun than tiger version ( i became a fan of it ).
thanx
unni
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Boyd Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrot
Still my 2 cents to use SDP instead of xmlized SDP in jingle and avoid
running behind all changes.
Let jingle do session management and not session description.
thanx
unni
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Olivier Crête <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 18:21 -0400, Olivier
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:59 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a p
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:59 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>
> Title: Abuse-Related Errors
>
> Abstract: This specification defines an application-specific error
> condition for reporting abusive communicat
Removal of session-info Busy will lead to the following condition not
addressed .
Calling an IVR and connecting to the client from the IVR ( example
are most prepaid international calls, In SIP case: its like 183
with SDP as response for INVITE and then collect the DTMF and dials
client . R
my fault, i was thinking in another way where
XEP 166 - represent the core protocol with details on messages , not scenarios
and XEP-0208 - call flows with jingle ( more scenarios )
thanx
unni
On Nov 12, 2007 9:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unnikrishnan V wrot
It will be nice if you can shed more light on this modification ( need
for modification ). Reason i felt is, we already have XEP-0208:
Bootstrapping Implementation of Jingle which is very incomplete. My 2
cents for Scenarios for various session flows goes to XEP-208 than
XEP-0166 . XEP-0166 sho
On 9/14/07, Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2007, at 21:59, Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> > The shared white board and file transfer thread looks to me like
> > we need a more generic session protocol which is capable of doing
> >
> > 1) W
The shared white board and file transfer thread looks to me like we need a
more generic session protocol which is capable of doing
1) Whiteboard
2) File transfer
3) Voice/ Video
4) chat and MUC
mostly based on the than ( it looks the core requirement
is to "work with with the message sessio
ROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> > >> The best approach, in my opinion is to have a generic network
> > service
> > >> record framework and
same
framework can be used for network server offered service or XMPP service
(like muc ).
2 more cents :-)
unni
On 8/13/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> > adding my 2 cents for the comets from scott +
> >
> > It may
adding my 2 cents for the comets from scott +
It may be nice to upgrade XEP-0215 to discover network servers ( almost same
functionality as of DNS SRV ) instead of just stun servers only ( as we
discussed early in this list ) so it can look up properly turn servers and
ports in some environments
We do this in the below way :
38632DAB-0E5F-4F9C-9F5B-D0DA6CB07688
xmlns="private:emot">emot-shout.au
This 'll give a buzz + play the au file at the other side. Another is, we
dont send in this message because already a chat is going and we just
want to play the sound and give a window shake.
Why not transport descriptions carry the key info than using media band,
jingle also is offer answer model.
2 cents :-)
thanx
unni
On 6/26/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> SRTP for media
I don't think it's up to us to solve the s
SRTP for media - modification of UDP transport - reason - current one
is not secure , some body with a sniffer can play ur packets.
:-)
On 6/25/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At ClueCon this week we'll have a roundtable discussion about Jingle:
http://www.cluecon.com/schedul
16 matches
Mail list logo
