[Standards] Jingle bootstrapping

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Fri Mar 2 18:24:24 UTC 2007


Justin, nobody will deny the great contribution you made with XEP-65, and
other associated XEPs around file transfer.
But IMHO just jumping on the STUN/TURN bandwagon because they are "being
approved within the IETF" is not a good enough reason. STUN/TURN existence
comes first and foremost because SIP itself, i.e. the signaling channel, can
use UDP as a transport. This is *NOT* the case with XMPP which (so far)
relies on TCP. As Thiago mentioned, XMPP servers can be as good as STUN/TURN
servers to provide address/port tuples to clients through XMPP only. And in
the mouth of a well versed SIP developer like Thiago, "We can evolve or
still think inside the SIP Box...." becomes rather palatable, don't you
think ;)
 
Jean-Louis

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Justin Karneges
Sent: sexta-feira, 2 de margo de 2007 05:49
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] Jingle bootstrapping

On Thursday 01 March 2007 6:26 pm, Thiago Camargo wrote:
> It's very fast, reliable and don't demands many implementations using
> another protocols then XMPP. Our goal is to get a fastest, reliable and
> XMPP only, transport negotiation. We already started some tests to get rid
> of STUN Servers as soon as we can. Building a reliable XMPP Only transport
> negotiation.

For an XMPP-style solution, we already have XEP-65.  It supports TCP and
UDP, 
direct or relayed.  Anything missing is covered by the Psi extension.  I had

this problem solved 3 years ago. :)

But that doesn't really matter.  The reason there is interest in STUN and
STUN 
Relaying is because they are being approved within the IETF.  We would do 
well to adopt these protocols instead of (or in place of) our own.

-Justin





More information about the Standards mailing list