[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

dirk.griffioen@voipster.com dgriffioen at voipster.com
Fri Feb 10 17:07:53 UTC 2006


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>-----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.
>
>  
>
But it will offload the server people and distribute load over use more 
fairly, I feel.

>  
>
>>>- 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.
>
>  
>
Isn't aesthetics important in math, but not in physics? (Where you jsut 
want the damn thing to work :-) ). Again, not trying to offend anyone, 
just curious. And maybe a bit serious too (but I am not gaming for a 
philosophy debate): I'd rather be 'turned down' on sound arguments (this 
will never work because ...) than on an aesthitic 'too many notes' one.

And I feel that is the discussion sofar, there has been some good points 
on either case - what then is the route? Are they collected and 
summarized, upon which a decision is based? This would be a good thing

>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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060210/3678692d/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list