[Jingle] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.
emcho at jitsi.org
Mon Jul 22 11:39:50 UTC 2013
On 22.07.13, 13:09, Dele Olajide wrote:
> 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
I'd say it was above all an implementation/business choice made by a
company that's not even called Oracle, so let's not treat it as such ;)
> 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.
You make it sound as if the XSF now suddenly decided to replace Jingle
with SDP and I don't believe such a decision has been made or that it's
even being considered.
> The point I made then is still valid
> right now. Jingle did not make itself attractive to all the web
Jingle could not make itself more attractive to web developers because
it simply uses a more advanced negotiation model than WebRTC's Offer/Answer.
If your API (WebRTC in this case) ties you into a specific negotiation
protocol then obviously you are going to have a hard time using it with
I've already mentioned that having something like SoX seems like a handy
tool for WebRTC compatibility (if only to probe interest).
Replacing Jingle however is an entirely different matter. I don't
personally believe that WebRTC would keep its O/A dependency for a long
time (unless someone has a continued interest in crippling the API).
Once we move to a lower level API Jingle would be much easier to use and
at that point it would be great to have it around.
> 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.
I remember seeing a post from you where you mentioned that you actually
implemented something like SoX. Am I mistaken?
Either way, I don't believe anyone prevented you from doing so and the
fact that you are now going for another model only seems to indicate
that the whole exercise was (or would have been) kind of futile anyway.
You obviously needed something else.
People/applications who actually need a standard federated signalling
protocol would make their own choices. When they do Jingle has a number
of advantages that it could bring against SDP O/A
> 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.
> -----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  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  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
>> The specification of Jingle RTP Sessions , 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
>> 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 ,
>> 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
>> The discussion venues are the Jingle mailing list  and the
>> Jingle XMPP multi-user chat room . Our next meeting in the MUC
>> room is Wednesday July 24 at 15:30 UTC and your participation would
>> be highly appreciated.
>> Ralph Meijer
>> <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-June/001933.html> 
>> <http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/technology-overview/jingle/> 
>> <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html> 
>> <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html> 
>> <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-July/001956.html> 
>> <http://logs.xmpp.org/jingle/130717/> 
>> <http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jingle> 
>> <xmpp:jingle at muc.xmpp.org?join>
More information about the Jingle