[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep
dgriffioen at voipster.com
Thu Feb 9 16:19:59 UTC 2006
Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:14:41 +0100, Peter Saint-Andre
> <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> What do people think?
> This JEP describes a way to transport SIP session data over XMPP.
> That offers several advantages:
> - Extremly easy gatewaying between the vast SIP network and XMPP.
> - More SIP clients can start adding XMPP for non-voip features
> - SIP clients can take advantage of doing connection level singnaling
> using XMPP, and XMPP identities.
> - XMPP clients that need the more advanced VoIP features provided by
> SIP (available standards and implementations) can easily use them.
> It's true Jingle and SIP overlap for a large part, but that's no
> argument to discard either. Zoep and Voipster are the proof of this.
> Extending Jingle to support all SIP features will make it a second
> TINS. Telling people to use Jingle or get lost when they need SIP
> features or SIP interoperation is also a bad idea. That doesn't rule
> out anyone making a Jingle/VoIP gateway if they want to (just like a
> TINS/SIP gateway could have been made).
> As for people on this list not liking SIP, I haven't noticed, I'm
> sure many people use SIP a lot, wether they're aware of it or not,
> and of course we've seen earlier intergration attemps (using uris).
> Now SIMPLE, that's another thing.. however SIMPLE has little to do
> with this, other than that this would give people using SIP a better
> alternative over SIMPLE.
> I agree that the proposal might need some more work however on the
> relation between XMPP and SIP elements.
Regarding your last remark, could you hint a little on along what lines
you are thinking?
(Thanks for the comment)
More information about the Standards