[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Feb 10 02:23:41 UTC 2006

Hash: SHA1

dirk.griffioen at voipster.com wrote:

>> In general I'd like to see an argument for why SIP-over-XMPP is a great
>> approach. What are the benefits? What do we gain? Is it more secure?
>> More scalable? More user-friendly? Easier to implement for developers?
>> (If so, why? SIP is huge, are you assuming that developers will just
>> make a call out to a SIP stack rather than writing a SIP implementation
>> of their own? What's the interaction between the XMPP stack and the SIP
>> stack? Etc.) Easier to deploy for admins?
> Code reuse, ease of implementation, 

If your client doesn't already have a SIP stack in it, you're not
reusing any code and it's not necessarily all that easy to implement.
(But I leave it up to those who write code to talk about that aspect.
I'm just a glorified tech writer.)

I know Akito is going to jump on me for saying that. But we have a very
large base of implemented and deployed XMPP software out there. Forcing
any client that wants to add voice-video-media support to now include a
SIP stack seems to me like a major implementation hurdle. Sure, they
could all use the OpenZoep stack, I guess, eh? But will that work on
Mac, Linux, Windows, PalmOS, Symbian, J2ME, RIM, WinCE, Amiga, and all
the other platforms we need to think about supporting?

> ease of connection with 'legacy'

For clients or server-side gateways? One of the problems people had with
TINS was that it was trivially easy to write a gateway but damn hard to
write the client. We don't want to go down that road again.

> as
> secure as both XMPP and SIP are.

SIP is secure? Authentication is OPTIONAL. From addresses are not
validated and checked. Interdomain communications ("federation") is
still a mess. Sure you can use sips: URIs (forcing TCP and TLS) but most
implementations out there will still use the old sip: URIs (UDP, no
TLS). It's like Jabber in the jabberd 1.0 days (1999-2000) when we
didn't have dialback.

> It is not more user-friendly (the user would not know if signalling
> passes gateways or not - maybe it's slower? I believe this was mentioned
> at the mailing list), or more scalable (we still would need hardware).
> Existing SIP stacks can be used, if they have an abstraction for the
> transport - one would add an XMPP transport and presto ...

I still don't see how XMPP is a transport for SIP in the way that TCP or
UDP is -- you've got a layering problem here.

> The admins I don't know about, could you hint?

The people I've talked with at major organizations don't find SIP to be
very "deployable" -- it was originally developed as a peer-to-peer
technology and it is difficult to make it fit into a client-server
architecture (which is what, for better or worse, deployment people are
comfortable with for many reasons -- manageability, compliance, etc.).


- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060209/6765cee3/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list