[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

Trejkaz trejkaz at trypticon.org
Wed Feb 8 09:13:20 UTC 2006


On Wednesday 08 February 2006 20:03, dirk.griffioen at voipster.com wrote:
> > 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 :-) ).

Not necessarily what Nolan meant, but when I read this prototype JEP, it 
seemed very similar to TINS, which was recently rejected in favour of Jingle 
due to basically every client author saying it was too hard to implement 
(explicitly, or implicitly by going and inventing their own extension.)

TX

-- 
             Email: trejkaz at trypticon.org
         Jabber ID: trejkaz at trypticon.org
          Web site: http://trypticon.org/
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060208/aa97d69c/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list