[Foundation] New protocol out of SIMPLE+XMPP :?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Oct 28 16:43:00 CST 2003

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:18:38PM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:01:32PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Yes, some people from the SIP community approached some people from the
> > Jabber community at the recent IM Planet convention. I was not there
> > so my information is second-hand. However, there seems to be a desire
> > among people in the SIP community to "bridge the gap" between SIP and
> > XMPP at the IETF. I'm not sure exactly what that means yet.
> They're just jealous that we're heading towards RFC status ;-P

I'm not speculating about motivations and intentions.

> > Some folks
> > seem to want a hybrid protocol of some kind (which doesn't make any
> > sense to me),
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Jabber transport system designed
> precisely in order to accomodate this type of interoperability "problem?"

To me, there are three possible "solutions" to this "problem":

1. Gateways. A well-accepted solution to such a problem. As long as both
protocols are open and well-defined, they can interoperate.

2. A higher-level negotiation protocol, which enables two servers to
negotiate which server-to-server protocol they will speak, if any. So
you either do SIP/SIMPLE or XMPP (or Wireless Village, or some other s2s
protocol that you negotiate). This seems harmless, even useful.

3. A "hybrid" protocol (the only such hybrid I've seen mentioned is SIP
for presence and XMPP for messaging). As I said, this doesn't make much
sense to me (would you combine HTTP and Gopher?).

> If we're going to expand XMPP to interface natively with SIP, does that
> mean we'll have a repeat when AOL decides to add "rich IM" features
> and is forced to open its network?  Where do we stop?  

XMPP shall not be changed, and no one will ever be required to interface
natively with SIP or any other protocol if they support XMPP.

> The XMPP drafts
> don't even include all the funcionality that the old "Jabber" system had
> (although to be fair, they include MANY "neat" features that the original
> didn't), and they're already getting _really_ long.  Whatever happened
> to the ancient goal of keeping everything simple?

As editor of the XMPP I-Ds, I try hard to keep things as simple as I 
possibly can within the IETF. I apologize if any work output from the
XMPP WG falls short of that goal. Also, what are the features that
exist now in Jabber but are missing from XMPP? (I'm not talking about 
things that were deliberately left out because they were not required,
naturally -- the drafts would have been way too long otherwise!)

> > but at this point the discussions are highly preliminary. 
> /me thinks it's probably better they stay that way, unless politics at
> the IETF dictate otherwise.

Dave, you are an astute observer. However, "politics" will not dictate 
changes to XMPP itself.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Members mailing list