[Standards-JIG] VoIP revisited

Cesar Martinez Izquierdo listas at ono.com
Wed May 4 18:10:37 UTC 2005


El Jueves 14 Abril 2005 03:32, Brian Raymond escribió:
> One thing I always appreciated about the TINS concept is that with it
> simply wrapping SDP there is a lot of flexibility there to easily leverage
> all of the current things being pushed out for SIP.
>
> I'm actually queued up in my organization to integrate audio into XMPP as I
> have a long history with synchronous collaboration protocols. I also think
> that's one reason why I like TINS so much, leveraging my existing SIP
> knowledge and work for both unencrypted and encrypted sessions is very
> straightforward. I haven't spent any cycles thinking about it yet since I'm
> working some other things but I imagine there might need to be some changes
> made to the JEP. My plan was to involve the community as we moved forward
> with our work.
>
> I spent some time a couple of years ago talking with Jabber Inc. and
> another third party about the "all-in-Jabber" approach you mention. The
> bottom line is the XMPP protocol wasn't built for that type of delivery so
> both Jabber Inc. and I agreed that wasn't the approach to take for media
> delivery.

I agree with this, too.

> In your paper you mention the TINS JEP in the "all-in-Jabber" approach, I'd
> actually liken it to your discussion on the mixed approach because that's
> closer to what it really is. SDP wrapped in XMPP with external RTP sessions
> is essentially a SIP call with an XMPP wrapper around the SDP normally on
> port 5060.

Well, TINS is in fact included inside the Mixed approach. However, there is 
some mention in the all-in-Jabber approach to the *OLD VERSION* of TINS, 
which was quite different.

So, if I understood correctly, TINS is the way to go for you.
Do anyone know the opinion of the Jabber Council about TINS?

Regards,

  Cesar



More information about the Standards mailing list