[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

dirk.griffioen@voipster.com dgriffioen at voipster.com
Wed Feb 8 23:31:07 UTC 2006


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>dirk.griffioen at voipster.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I do feel there is some overlap
>>between Jingle and Zoep, so what I would be interested in is in
>>determining where and how big this overlap is. Jingle is without doubt
>>very well thought out, but there is value in SIP too, if only for
>>legacy, connectivity or wider acclaim: now XMPP does SIP too .. which
>>maybe brings in parties formerly not aware of or not interested in
>>XMPP's possibilities.
>>    
>>
>
>It's amusing to see people arguing for the benefits of SIP on this list
>("I realize XMPP rocks, but don't forget, there is value in SIP too"!).
>I'm not being critical at all, but it's not something we see every day
>here. :-)
>
>I agree with you that we need to determine what the overlap is between
>Jingle and Zoep. Perhaps it would help for you to define the use cases
>that Zoep is addressing. Is this something that two XMPP clients would
>use to set up a voice chat or other multimedia session? Is it something
>that an XMPP client would use only when communicating with a SIP gateway?
>
>  
>
I certainly will give this a go.

>There are many ways that SIP and XMPP can interoperate. One way is
>through gateways. I've defined a spec for that at the IM and presence
>level (draft-saintandre-xmpp-simple) and I envision writing something
>like that for multimedia sessions as well once the Jingle spec is a
>little more stable. The gateway approach may seem ugly, but it is a
>workable model (we've been doing gateways in the Jabber world since
>1999). Better, I think, to let each protocol go its own way and interop
>through gateways than to mix the two in ways that no one ever intended.
>  
>
That's a good argument, and one that makes sense.

Could it be that we are on a different paradigm? (Pardon my french). But 
then again, Tins had a similar approach as Zoep - but with Tins the 
embedded elements where left for what they are.

Zoep would need a gateway too, for reaching someone inside the Jabber 
cloud from the outside, so nothing against gateways here. And a Jingle 
gateway would have to do SIP anyway.

So now I wonder, is this a design choice? I mean, the feeling I get is 
that JEP's should be XMPP by nature and not pull in elements from 
elsewhere without transformation.

But, would it not be an idea to:
- offload this burden to clients: imagine having to process many many 
SIP-Jingle transformations (where the gateway would be a statefull 
proxy, I believe in SIP terms), would that not eat resources fast?
- tcp does not care about what is sent, why does xmpp?

>But I'm open to argument. :-)
>
>  
>
Dirk

>Peter
>
>- --
>Peter Saint-Andre
>Jabber Software Foundation
>http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFD6mf5NF1RSzyt3NURAnsbAJ99TChYM1j4fzN4G12DisWGcsC6LgCfUI3R
>8Cf8tmUAPCRMd0IsSnOBpWA=
>=GjZr
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060209/f3e9af27/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list