[Standards-JIG] VoIP Jabber

[Richard Dobson]

> How would it be done with oob namespaces. Could you write example stanzas, 
> please?

<iq type='set'
    from='romeo at jabber.org/work'
    to='juliet at jabber.org/home'
    id='oob1'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:oob'>
    <url>callto:10.0.0.2</url>
    <desc>A call from Romeo</desc>
  </query>
</iq>

Nice and simple and we can do it now (infact I know of some clients that 
already do use it in this way), without any new protocol, have a look at 
JEP-0066 section 4.

> >...hopefully
> >they have solved the negotiation problems where say only one of the 2 
> >users
> >in a conversation can accept incoming connections (and reverse the
> >connections so a connection can be established by either party, which the
> >simple address scheme does not solve on its own), we might even 
> >conceivably
> >be able to add bytestreams support to their protocol.

> This is the problem I do not want to discuss, research, nor solve in the 
> Jabber context. Jabber
> sohuld only convey addresses and leave the firewall traversal to the VoIP 
> tools.

Easier said than done, I dont see how the VoIP tool can solve firewall 
problems and do full traversal (and stuff like reversing connections) if 
they have no way of signaling the other party because they cannot connect to 
them, so thus for it to work there needs to be some call setup stuff in the 
jabber layer, or better yet go with Jean-Louis suggestion which if far more 
likely to make the process seemless and integrates it in properly.

> Thus, a simple address will do the job, if the VoIP tool does its job 
> well.

Sure but as far as I can see if the voip tool only has the ip address all it 
can do is say "cannot connect", it cannot do anything clever like reversing 
the connections to get around firewalls as it has no way of signaling the 
other user.

> The VoIP have their firewall problems
> and they solve it. Some do better, some worse. Skype does better, some IMs 
> do quite well.
> They let you talk to people behind DSL routers on private IP addresses 
> without configuring NAT.
> Some do worse like MS Netmeeting. But it's not my job. It's theirs.
> We deal with addresses, whatever they are and tell them to connect, 
> whatever they do.
> That's the idea.


Sure I can see that, and if you really want to keep it this simple without 
any of the frills of being able to connect users more seemlessly then you 
can just use JEP-0066 as is without needing to create a new protocol for 
sending call URI's between users and you will have the added benefit of 
being able to interoperate with all the other clients that already support 
starting voip clients using OOB and callto URIs.

Richard