[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

dirk.griffioen@voipster.com 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:
>> http://www.openzoep.org/docs/jabber/jep-0xxx.html
>> 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.
Hi Tijl,

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 mailing list