XMPP Council - 2014-01-14

  1. Lance has left

  2. tato has joined

  3. tato has left

  4. tato has joined

  5. bear has left

  6. Lance has joined

  7. tato has left

  8. Tobias has left

  9. bear has joined

  10. bear has left

  11. Tobias has left

  12. bear has joined

  13. Tobias has joined

  14. bear has left

  15. ralphm has left

  16. Kev has joined

  17. Kev

    OK, http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-dtls.html (surely this should be called jingle-srtp?) is confusing me.

  18. Kev

    It's not at all clear to me if that sctpmap element is proposing an additional candidate using SCTP at the IP layer, or if it's saying that when the two proposed UDP candidates are tried, SCTP should be tried over UDP.

  19. fippo

    jingle-dtls-sctp probably

  20. Kev

    (Because SCTP will either work at the transport layer or tunnelled over UDP, right?)

  21. fippo

    in the context of webrtc it's sctp/udp authenticated via dtls fingerprints

  22. Kev

    So the sctpmap element in this case is saying "Try the existing candidates, but tunnel SCTP over them".

  23. fippo

    yeah, that's the plan

  24. Kev

    Which wasn't at all clear to me from the times I read it (I assumed as much, given it should have been its own candidate otherwise, but ...).

  25. Kev

    In which case, how does this play with having multiple candidates?

  26. fippo

    the tricky issue is that this will often be BUNDLE'd with srtp

  27. Kev

    Is there any reason I shouldn't be able to offer both SCTP/DTLS/UDP candidates, and TCP candidates?

  28. Kev

    Well, that's not remotely possible given the structure of the transport mechanism, is it?

  29. fippo

    you think this shoudldn't be part of <transport/>

  30. Kev

    I'm saying no such thing.

  31. Kev

    I'm asking questions.

  32. fippo

    you make me wonder...

  33. fippo

    if it makes more sense to put the sctpmap to the 0234 part

  34. Kev

    The first thing I'm wondering is whether it's possible to implement from just this protoXEP, without already knowing what the author means :)

  35. Kev

    Although we've published un-implementable Experimentals before, as a statement of direction, so that's not a blocker.

  36. Kev

    I'm going to OK this, but I'm not quite sure yet that it's the right way to do it (nor am I sure otherwise), I lack prerequisite knowledge.

  37. fippo

    we'll see

  38. fippo

    i'm pretty eager to see a pull request for strophe.jingle :-)

  39. Lance has joined

  40. Lance has joined

  41. stpeter has joined

  42. stpeter has left

  43. stpeter has joined

  44. Lance has left

  45. Lance has left

  46. Tobias has left

  47. Tobias has joined

  48. stpeter has left

  49. Lance has joined

  50. stpeter has joined

  51. stpeter has left

  52. stpeter has joined

  53. Lance has joined

  54. Lance has joined

  55. stpeter has left

  56. Tobias has left

  57. Tobias has left

  58. Tobias has joined

  59. Tobias has left

  60. tato has joined

  61. Lance has left

  62. tato has left

  63. tato has joined

  64. Tobias has left

  65. Tobias has joined