[standards-jig] TINS and associated subjects

Ulrich Staudinger us at die-horde.de
Tue Jan 13 11:05:33 UTC 2004


In fact the jabber community even has an AVTaskForce but the whole 
discussion went into nirvana sometime ....
I experimented with all this stuff in e2 
(http://complat.sourceforge.net) and e3 has voice chatting (but only in 
a very rudimentary implementation - 
http://complat.sourceforge.net/jnlp/index.php ).

what i may say, it's not only voip ...

CORVOYSIER David FTRD/DMI/REN wrote:

>I am glad you found answers to your questions. I will now wait also for the 19th ... I was not aware that someone else (Ulrich) was working on VoIP over Jabber ...
>
>David
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Yann Klis [mailto:yklis at kaliasys.com]
>Envoyé : mardi 13 janvier 2004 08:37
>À : standards-jig at jabber.org
>Objet : RE: [standards-jig] TINS and associated subjects
>
>
>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. :)
>
>yk
>
>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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