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