[Jingle] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.

Dele Olajide dele at inspiredfutures.co.uk
Mon Jul 22 11:09:30 UTC 2013


I applaud the effort as well, but I hope it is not too late. I suppose Google abandoning Jingle was a wake-up call (no pun intended).

When I first proposed what has now been labelled SOX (SDP over XMPP) over a year ago, as an extension to Jingle and even wrote a draft XEP, I was shot down in flames. The point I made then is still valid right now. Jingle did not make itself attractive to all the web developers looking for a protocol back then to implement WebRTC signalling and most of them have since adopted SIP over Websockets with JsSIP or did some custom SDP invite/offer/answer/terminate signalling with JSON and NodeJs.

Jingle is fast becoming irrelevant on a few WebRTC projects I have been working on since. We now integrate WebRTC directly into the chat and group-chat sessions. We have no need for another out-of context signalling session. It also solves the issue of forking calls to multiple XMPP user sessions. In fact, we are moving away from legacy telephone calls to natural human audio and visual communication. As in "Sisko to O'Brien" from the Star Trek DS9 TV show.

-dele

-----Original Message-----
From: jingle-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:jingle-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kuckartz
Sent: 22 July 2013 11:15
To: jingle at xmpp.org
Subject: Re: [Jingle] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.

I applaud this effort.

Interoperability is not only necessary between XMPP,  SIP, rtcweb and WebRTC. Collaboration of additional stakeholder communities is important
- even if the work mostly will rest on the core communities addressed by this SIG.

When the message is sent I will therefore also forward it to the W3C Federated Social Web Community Group. Hopefully that will generate input especially regarding requirements.

I consider security-aspects to be especially important and the W3C FSW CG seems to share that view.

Cheers,
Andreas
---

Ralph Meijer:
> As discussed briefly in the "Future Jingle SIG" Formation thread, I 
> suggested to send a message to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working 
> groups to inform their respective participants about the formation of 
> the SIG.
> 
> I drafted the following message. Comments welcome!
> 
> -----✂-----✂-----
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to inform you of the recent formation [1] of the Jingle 
> Special Interest Group (SIG) at the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF). 
> The recent increase of activity in the WebRTC and rtcweb working 
> groups and related high-profile product developments and announcements 
> were reasons for the XMPP Council to decide to concentrate efforts 
> around Jingle in a SIG.
> 
> Jingle [2] is a general framework for managing media sessions between 
> XMPP Sessions, including, but not limited to, audio/video streams, 
> file transfer and application sharing. There are several documents 
> describing applications of Jingle and the used transports, most linked 
> from the overall framework specification [3].
> 
> The specification of Jingle RTP Sessions [4], most relevant to these 
> working groups, defines a Jingle application type for negotiating RTP 
> sessions. It has been designed such that interoperability with 
> SIP-based systems is possible. This includes mapping negotiation 
> parameters to and from SDP, while remaining a signaling protocol in 
> its own right (not mere SDP in angle brackets).
> 
> The following work items were defined in the kick-off meeting last 
> Wednesday, July 17 [5, raw log 6]:
> 
>  * Re-examining the state of the various Jingle proposals.
>  * Polishing Jingle File Transfer.
>  * Updating the SDP mapping in [4], including BUNDLE and Trickle-ICE
>    improvements.
>  * Documenting and communicating the value proposition of Jingle/XMPP.
> 
> This SIG already includes a number of people participating in 
> discussions on the WebRTC and rtcweb mailing lists and is lead by Dave 
> Cridland (chair), Philipp Hancke, Lance Stout and myself. It is open 
> to anyone, and we are looking forward to cooperate with the WebRTC and 
> rtcweb working groups to improve both WebRTC and Jingle.
> 
> The discussion venues are the Jingle mailing list [7] and the Jingle 
> XMPP multi-user chat room [8]. Our next meeting in the MUC room is 
> Wednesday July 24 at 15:30 UTC and your participation would be highly 
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ralph Meijer
> 
> [1] <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-June/001933.html>
> [2] <http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/technology-overview/jingle/>
> [3] <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html>
> [4] <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html>
> [5] <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-July/001956.html>
> [6] <http://logs.xmpp.org/jingle/130717/>
> [7] <http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jingle>
> [8] <xmpp:jingle at muc.xmpp.org?join>
> 
> -----✂-----✂-----
> 



More information about the Jingle mailing list