[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Feb 10 02:31:43 UTC 2006


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

dirk.griffioen at voipster.com wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

There may be some of that going on. We tend to prefer structured
formats, which is why folks are looking into SVG whiteboards rather than
the texty format in JEP-0113. Just putting a big blob of text inside an
XML element doesn't look like Jabber. So part of the reaction to Zoep
may simply be aesthetic.

>> 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?

We tend not to like burdening clients.

>> - tcp does not care about what is sent, why does xmpp?

See above on aesthetics. Jabber/XMPP came out of communities that prefer
XML to binary / ASCII, and XML-ish people tend to work on XMPP. SIP came
from a different kind of community. I'm not saying one is superior to
the other aesthetically, but they are quite different in their
assumptions and guiding design choices. I would bet that sticking one of
these protocols inside the other just feels wrong to a lot of people.

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

iD8DBQFD6/sPNF1RSzyt3NURAnrxAJ45qJp7XWzdsGt8QyXiQfh7afsohACfVuU4
iTljianb/zEvbXq1Xk4AH7U=
=gJOJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- 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/20060209/6672d3a7/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list