[Jingle] Proposed message to send to the IETF rtcweb and W3C WebRTC working groups.
pthatcher at google.com
Mon Jul 22 14:25:48 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Dele Olajide <dele at inspiredfutures.co.uk>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 intended).
Why do you think Google has abandoned Jingle? Every realtime application I
know of at Google still uses Jingle for signalling. In fact, here's the
open source code the mobile apps (Google Talk and Google+ Hangouts) use:
I can't show you the server-side code, but I have written much of it, and
I can tell you it's still using Jingle for signalling.
> 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.
> -----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.
> 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 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 , 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  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.
> > Thanks,
> > 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>
> > -----✂-----✂-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Jingle