[Standards-JIG] Jingle vs. Zoep

Pedro Melo melo at co.sapo.pt
Fri Feb 10 21:37:25 UTC 2006


On Feb 10, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Akito Nozaki wrote:
> XMPP protocol was not implemented based on AIM/ICQ, MSN, Yahoo  
> protocol,
> but got ideas from it. Why is Jingle<->SIP gateway so important but
> gateway to these IM network wasn't as important?

In terms of instant messaging, I think the future is XMPP. I consider  
those networks legacy. And the only reason we keep a boat-load of  
servers running pyMSNt here is a business decision, not a technical one.

In terms of PC2PC, we prefer using XMPP only + ICE for NAT traversal  
+ RTP and Codecs. Our SAPO Messenger client is a dual-stack right  
now, SIP and XMPP, using a commercial SIP stack, and I can tell you  
that from our experience, it creates more problems than the time it  
saves on implementation.

In terms of PC2PSTN, we consider SIP to be the future *for now*.  
Telcos (we are part of the portuguese telco, btw) use SIP, period.  
They don't accept nothing else right now. So you need SIP, but not on  
the client, just on a special gateway that translates what ever you  
want to use on the IM network to signal voice and video to SIP. The  
important part as we see it is to make sure the voice data is  
interoperable directly, without transcoding.

Why we prefer the server-side gateway? Simple (bad pun...): SIP is  
complex, and not all SIP proxys we intereact with are exactly the  
same. Some of them send some events, others don't. The problem with  
that is the complexity the client has to have to deal with all those  
SIP variations. Believe me, we have some of those here. So when ever  
we need to tweak some code to deal with another SIP diference, we  
have to deploy hundreds of thousand copies of our client. And then  
some of our client, for whatever reason don't update all at the same  
time (right now, our online users stats shows 10 different SAPO  
messenger's versions....).

If we push the SIP complexity to the server-side, upgrades to deal  
with SIP stuff are very very simple, and with immediate benefits to  
all of our clients.

Our hope with Jingle is that it will cover some % of what SIP is  
capable of, but that part is probably 100% of what we want to offer  
on our client. And we get a XML schema to validate what we get from  
the other clients/gateways. And I can dump the SIP stack and keep  
only the RTP, ICE and Codecs.

Our hope with libjingle is the ICE stuff, and probably the media- 
control stuff. We are not going to use the XMPP parts most likely.

Please note: I'm not a technical writer or a protocol writer, and my  
knowledge of SIP is still limited. I wrote this mail as someone who  
has to keep a comercial XMPP service, with a VoIP client using dual- 
stack SIP/XMPP, *and* has already a connection with PSTN working.

Best regards,
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo at co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo at sapo.pt

More information about the Standards mailing list