[standards-jig] TINS and associated subjects

Yann Klis yklis at kaliasys.com
Tue Jan 13 07:37:13 UTC 2004

Thanks a lot for your very complete answer, it really covers all the
questions I asked myself !
Now, I will wait for the 19th of January. :)


Le lun 12/01/2004 à 16:40, CORVOYSIER David FTRD/DMI/REN a écrit :
> Hi,
> I've been involved in a project in 2003 that aimed at providing
> VoIP communications between XMPP users and between XMPP and SIP users.
> We used TINS to establish voice calls between XMPP users, and a gateway 
> to translate TINS into SIP to establish calls between an XMPP and a SIP
> user.
> We had previously (in 2002) implemented a "rough" XMPP voice client
> using only jabber:iq:oob,
> but we needed to interoperate with SIP user agents.
> We decided to go for TINS because we thought it would help us designing
> a gateway
> to the SIP realm (knowing TINS uses SDPng). 
> The results of the project are mitigated:
> The good point:
> We succeeded in establishing voice calls between two of our XMPP
> clients,
> between our XMPP client and various SIP user agents, and even between
> our XMPP
> client and standard phones through a SIP PSTN gateway (Yippee !).
> The bad points:
> 1. Using TINS added more complexity to our clients than we thought, for
> little
> added value compared to the jabber:iq:oob solution (we don't use that
> many options). 
> 2. Using TINS didn't help us building our gateway: SDPng to SDP mapping
> was painful 
> enough, and the mapping of all SIP routing/session/transaction/timer
> mechanisms to XMPP
> was a nightmare (I praise jeremie miller for not having based jabber on
> UDP !).
> 3. To fully interoperate with the SIP world, and especially with phones,
> we realized we
> would have to add more and more stanzas to TINS, to the extent that we
> would completely 
> reinvent SIP (PRACK messages needed for interaction with telephony
> gateways are an example).
> 4. SIP is by far not mature in all its implementations, and we had to
> dedicate our gateway to
> our target SIP equipments (DynamicSoft proxy, Alcatel proxy, Lucent PSTN
> gateway): an interface
> with other equipments may require additional developments, and may be
> incompatible with the existing ones.
> 5. SDPng is still in its early definition stages. We will be stuck to
> the SDPng to SDP mapping for a while ...
> 6. A brief study showed us that it would also be a pain to add SIMPLE
> support to our gateway.
> So, as far as our project is concerned, we are now considering to drop
> TINS and switch to a dual XMPP/SIP
> architecture, because we would rather rely on a SIP stack than embed
> anything in XMPP to later translate it to SIP.
> Even if the SIP interoperability was not so important to us, I think we
> would nevertheless drop TINS and go back to
> our jabber:iq:oob solution because it's not worth the complexity it
> imposes.
> Now, regarding the SIMPLE interface, I think the way SER did it is the
> right way to go: they added a small XMPP module to an 
> existing SIMPLE server. Our experience with SIP and XMPP has showed us
> that the complexity is more on the SIP side, so if you
> can rely on an existing server, it saves us the pain of implementing the
> whole "consistency mechanisms" of SIP.
> My two cents on that very tricky subject ...
> David  
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Yann Klis [mailto:yklis at kaliasys.com]
> Envoye : lundi 12 janvier 2004 15:11
> A : standards-jig at jabber.org
> Objet : [standards-jig] TINS and associated subjects
> Hello,
> First, sorry for bothering you with this subject but I didn't found
> another mailling list where I can discuss the below points. Excuse me if
> it's not the right place.
> I saw that VoIP integration (and more generally Videoconferencing
> integration) was heavily discuss during year 2003 among various
> Jabber.org hosted mailing list, and even a JEP was published (TINS) to
> cover this topic.
> However, is there really any will to develop the Jabber
> protocol/framework to answer this matter ?
> I mean, the JEP TINS is nearly 1 year old, but is there any ongoing work
> on it? If yes, where can I find this information?
> Moreover, is there any attempt to be more interoperable with SIP/SIMPLE
> on the Jabber side ? I mean, the only attempt that I'm aware of is the
> SER gateway SIMPLE2Jabber.
> Finally, is there a known place where I can find more information on
> that topic ?
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> yk
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list