[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep
dgriffioen at voipster.com
Wed Feb 8 09:28:02 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.
>>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.)
I do agree there is a similarity to TINS, at the moment of conception of
Zoep, this was a big big inspiration as being the only available jep
However, there is one big difference: Zoep does not try to xmpp-ify SIP,
it just wraps it. So there is no need for invention :-) or own
extensions: you need a simple SIP stack (of which many exists, either
open or not): parser + statemachine to get up and running.
As I understood from the mailing list, Jingle too is not without
implementation hardship in some areas ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards