[Standards-JIG] FW: Jingle - P2P and PBX calls

Simon simon at nureality.ca
Tue Dec 27 22:17:16 UTC 2005


Ok let me try and understand this correctly.

Session types is if the client actually implements that type, be it SIP or 
IAX etc.

Gateways, is because the jabber client only speaks Jingle Audio, so a 
gateway must exist to convert Jingle Audio to SIP or IAX etc.

Is this correct? So Jingle is now flexible so the client can support many 
different formats either through gateways or through actual client 
supporting that session type?

Thanks,
Simon


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Ludwig" <scottlu at google.com>
To: "Jabber protocol discussion list" <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] FW: Jingle - P2P and PBX calls


> Gatewaying is different from the session type though, right?

Yes, gatewaying is different than session types.

> Ideally,
> JEP-0167 would work for any kind of audio, not just XMPP<->XMPP.

JEP-0167 can be gatewayed to SIP, IAX, etc.

> I would expect it to be possible to make a gateway, such that a client 
> could
> perform Jingle-Audio to a JID: "+18002553700 at pots.jabber.org".  Literally 
> it
> would be just like any other transport, and the client would know nothing 
> of
> SIP or PBXs, even if those are what actually get used in the end.

Yes, that's right. That's how a gateway should work from a client's
point of view - transparently.

Scott

>
> -Justin
>
> On Friday 23 December 2005 09:24, Scott Ludwig wrote:
> > JEP-0166 is a generic service for negotiating a session and
> > establishing and maintaining p2p streams between two end points
> > through NATs and firewalls.
> >
> > JEP-0167 is a specific session type for audio, that uses JEP-0166 for
> > sesssion signaling and p2p stream establishment.
> >
> > Anything that can be sent over a stream is fair game for a new session
> > type..
> >
> > If you want to plug in a PBX, so you can have a Jingle client on one
> > side, and some other (non-Jingle) phone on the other side, you need a
> > gateway that knows how to translate the signaling, end point
> > addressing, and potentially media format if something other than RTP
> > is needed. There will be a Jingle-SIP JEP upcoming that describes this
> > gatewaying for SIP. Likewise for IAX and H.323.
> >
> > Asterisk will get this gatewaying knowledge built into to it (ideally 
> > :-)).
> >
> > Does that answer the question?
> >
> > On 12/23/05, Hal Rottenberg <halr9000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/23/05, Simon Guindon <simon.guindon at tomahawk.ca> wrote:
> > > > As far as Jingle-IAX. I guess this is what I'm initially talking 
> > > > about.
> > > > Do we need a Jingle-IAX or can the current Jingle accommodate what 
> > > > is
> > > > required for PBX like call setups. And if not, can it be slightly
> > > > tweaked, or is a whole new addition required as you mention 
> > > > Jingle-IAX?
> > >
> > > Maybe this would help: s/Jingle/Jingle Signalling/
> > >
> > > The way I understand it you have been talking about JEP-0167 Jingle
> > > Audio, when you need to be talking about JEP-0166 Jingle Signalling.
> > > I think you would have a new JEP for IAX and it would look similar to
> > > JEP-0167?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
> > > im:hal at jabber.rocks.cc
> > > http://halr9000.com
> >
> > !DSPAM:43ac370a190051050621154!
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list