Re: [Stox] [Jingle] media: rejecting an m-line in jingle

Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> Thu, 19 September 2013 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D6321F9AD2 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntso7lK+a56t for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (lost.IN.psyced.org [188.40.42.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED3D21F9AA7 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.psyced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r8J7r2Cl003222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:53:02 +0200
Received: from localhost (fippo@localhost) by lo.psyced.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id r8J7r2Tb003217; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:53:02 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: lo.psyced.org: fippo owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:53:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-X-Sender: fippo@lo.psyced.org
To: XMPP Jingle <jingle@xmpp.org>
In-Reply-To: <1379521739.4061.2.camel@TesterBox.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309190946260.3051@lo.psyced.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309181507090.9311@lo.psyced.org> <1379521739.4061.2.camel@TesterBox.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="683466026-431934476-1379577182=:3051"
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] [Jingle] media: rejecting an m-line in jingle
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:53:34 -0000

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Olivier Crête wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 15:25 +0200, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> Jingle doesn't have a mapping for the port in the m-line. So how can one
>> reject a single m-line (content) in jingle?
>
> You just send a "content-remove" stanza. The jingle design tries to
> avoid nasty hack such as the port=0 SIP/SDP thing.

So you'd send a content-remove before sending the session-accept?

FWIW, it's not actually clear to me whether jingle imposes a 
"session-accept must have the same number of contents as session-initiate" 
constraint (3264 is only used for the inclusion of payloads).
If it doesn't then not sending rejected contents in the answer would be 
valid, but I doubt gateways will appreciate that more than the 
content-remove way :-)