[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

dirk.griffioen@voipster.com dgriffioen at voipster.com
Wed Feb 8 09:28:02 UTC 2006


Trejkaz wrote:

>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
>
>  
>
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 
adressing this.

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 ...

Dirk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060208/708854bc/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list