[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

dirk.griffioen@voipster.com dgriffioen at voipster.com
Wed Feb 8 09:03:02 UTC 2006

Nolan Eakins wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> In essence they encapsulate entire SIP packets in an XML wrapper and
>> send them over XMPP.
>> I think it would be beneficial to discuss the pros and cons of each
>> approach (e.g., to determine if it makes sense to publish the OpenZoep
>> doc as a JEP).
>> What do people think?
> This could be beneficial with a tiered Jingle to SIP/POTS service. So 
> you would get a public Jingle layer using Zoep to communicate with a 
> SIP gateway to POTS.
> Other than that, I would shy away from having two VoIP specs. If this 
> proposal was vastly superior, then it would be good to phase out the 
> lesser. That's not the case here.
> - Nolan
Hi Nolan,

Could you maybe elaborate a little on 'that's not the case here'? As is, 
it feels like an unargumented qualification (no offense meant :-) ).

Secondly, other than Peters remark 

"2. Require dual-stack clients and simply launch SIP from XMPP",

in my view Zoep is not really a dual stack client.

It rather separates SIP and XMPP to do what they do best:
- SIP is concerned with signalling states
- XMPP concerns the transport and routing.

(In SIP terms, I believe, this is called a 'transport' - SIP allows for 
multiple transports: TCP, UDP; XMPP is merely the layer on top of which 
SIP travels).

In a way this this is a 2 layered approach where both layers are 
transparant to each other. SIP does not care about XMPP and vice versa 
(it's 'just a message' to XMPP)..

We use XMPP for all the benefits it has, but we do not bring signalling 
state and other issues into the XMPP realm. A clear separation of 
concern if you will. It has the added benefit of being compatible with 
all existing SIP solutions available out-of-the box and further, there's 
no need for a heavy duty gateway: you just remove/add the XMPP layer to 
cross borders.

What do you think?



More information about the Standards mailing list