[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Feb 10 09:07:51 UTC 2006

This is no good answer Peter, and you know better than this :)
What is an 'end user'? Another of these 'vague, philosophical' concepts
similar in its usage to how politics refer to 'the people'? You won't make
me believe this is all you have?

And it wouldn't be fair betting to pretend that whatever we do, nobody will
qualify the work done today as a piece of crap in the future. Times they are
a changing... 

I agree 100% that prototypes are necessary to assess the viability of a
project. But it is also very rare that prototypes come out as the final
solution in their original form.
And I am not found of formalization for the sake of formalism. There is a
pragmatic middle-ground between the two approaches, isn't it? 

Why not just expose the issues before formalizing them in a JEP, rather than
having people comment on an incomplete description. Do not tell me there are
no issues. Wouldn't it be worth creating JSF working groups to tackle those
issues? I'm just saying that the process as it stands is serial. And
everything is linked to 'you' the authors 'stabilizing' Jingle. 
Don't you think it would be possible to work on different aspects of this
large subject on parallel tracks and reconcile different point of view along
the time line?

-----Original Message-----

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:45:29 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] RE: Jingle vs. Zoep
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <43EBFE49.3050409 at jabber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hash: SHA1

Jean-Louis Seguineau wrote:

> Now for the purpose. Why do we want to negotiate media sessions? Just
> because it's cool? Because we want to re-invent what Skype has done
> Because we do not like SIP and we want to re-do what SIP is already doing?
> Because clients' developers want to interoperate with GTalk? [insert your
> own good reason here]

Because end users have been asking for it over the last 3 years and
we've never gotten our act together enough to do something about it?

> I haven't seen anything but vague hints at the real values that XMPP could
> derive from enabling media session negotiation. What benefit can the XMPP
> community derive for this? What benefit can commercial entities supporting
> XMPP derive from this? 
> I personally have only partial answers to this, but I entirely agree that
> asking one self "Does XMPP really need the complex feature set SIP
> provides?" is an excellent starting point. Jingle in its current form (and
> under the umbrella of two commercial entities) has given the community the
> documentation of an existing prototype and the beginning of a return on
> experience. Is this sufficient for a viable robust protocol definition? 

Quite possibly not. Life is about iteration. We work on something, and
maybe it works long-term or maybe it doesn't. 10 years from now people
will look back on half the stuff we've done and think "sheesh, why did
they publish that JEP, it was a bunch of crap". But we experiment and
try things so that someone else can stand on our shoulders in the
future. I realize that's a vague, philosophical answer, but I don't know
that I have a better one. :-)


More information about the Standards mailing list