[standards-jig] Voice and Video conferencing: need for a gene ric conferencing protocol ?
JHildebrand at jabber.com
Tue Apr 1 19:16:09 UTC 2003
Pointer to TINS for those that are new:
David, I'm not sure what you mean about MUC being dedicated to text. Just
because the room can process text messages doesn't mean that clients need to
send them or render them. There is no reason why a MUC implementation
couldn't respond with more than one browse/disco type to indicate it was
also a voice gateway of some type.
It is useful at times to combine text conferencing and voice conferencing.
I've got a demo that shows the first steps of this, where users' presence in
the room is modified by their on-hook/off-hook state, and the voice bridge
calls out to them...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CORVOYSIER David FTRD/DMI/REN
> [mailto:david.corvoysier at rd.francetelecom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:10 AM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: [standards-jig] Voice and Video conferencing: need for a
> generic conferencing protocol ?
> I am involved in a project that aims at integrating voice and
> possibly video conferencing in a jabber-based IM product. We
> already have working solutions for the actual voice or video
> data exchanges: only the sig part remains to be implemented
> in XMPP. I have planned to use TINS for the negotiation of
> voice and video sessions, and some kind of variant of the MUC
> protocol for the conferencing part.
> What puzzles me is that the MUC room management protocol
> could be used almost as is for multimedia conferencing, if it
> had not be primarily targeted as addressing text conferencing
> needs (the conferencing service itself is dedicated to text
> based messaging : category='conference', type='text'
> specified during discovery).
> So, my point is: wouldn't it be possible to define a generic
> conferencing protocol that could support various
> collaborative services ?
> Basically, if I wanted to such a protocol, I will duplicate
> the MUC room management protocol simply changing the 'text'
> type to 'generic' (or omitting it), and add more fields in
> the "room" item in disco to support text, voice, video or
> other kinds of collaborative tasks (whiteboard, text-editing,
> co-browsing, ...). We could have for instance
> voice.myroom at conference.jabber.org,
> text.myroom at conference.jabber.org ...
> So, what do you think: does it make sense or should it be
> better to define a voice/video conferencing protocol from
> scratch with type 'voice/video' ?
> David CORVOYSIER
> France Telecom R&D
> email: david.corvoysier at francetelecom.com
> jids: dcorvoysier at jabber.com, david.corvoysier at wanadoo.fr
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards