6 Oct
2009
6 Oct
'09
8:18 p.m.
Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA specifications) for a
presence environment.
Self explanatory.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
9 Oct
9 Oct
10:03 a.m.
6 okt 2009 kl. 19.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA
specifications)
for a
presence environment.
THere's also a draft and a proposal for a new wg that tries to resolve
issues between SIP and XMPP (without SIMPLE) on the client side,
without messing with gateways.
/O
11:20 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net> wrote:
6 okt 2009 kl. 19.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00560.html
Cheers,
--
Victor Pascual Ávila
Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA
specifications) for a
presence environment.
THere's also a draft and a proposal for a new wg that tries to resolve
issues between SIP and XMPP (without SIMPLE) on the client side, without
messing with gateways.
12:25 p.m.
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
6 okt 2009 kl. 19.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
What does "without SIMPLE" mean?
I will no accept such kind of "hack" (a multiprotocol client). SIMPLE
is capable of offering similar services as XMPP does. Just
implementations are needed. And this will never achieved if we insist
on using XMPP "because SIMPLE is not mature yet".
Just my opinion. Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA
specifications) for a
presence environment.
THere's also a draft and a proposal for a new wg that tries to resolve
issues between SIP and XMPP (without SIMPLE) on the client side, without
messing with gateways.
12:29 p.m.
9 okt 2009 kl. 11.25 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
A phone without SIMPLE. Just SIP for
calls, and XMPP for IM and
presence.
In short: A failure for everyone that believes in SIMPLE.
6 okt 2009 kl. 19.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
What does "without SIMPLE" mean? Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA
specifications)
for a
presence environment.
THere's also a draft and a proposal for a new wg that tries to
resolve
issues between SIP and XMPP (without SIMPLE) on the client side,
without
messing with gateways. I will no accept such kind of "hack" (a
multiprotocol client). SIMPLE
is capable of offering similar services as XMPP does. Just
implementations are needed. And this will never achieved if we insist
on using XMPP "because SIMPLE is not mature yet".
Keep on fighting!
/O
12:42 p.m.
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
Nobody wants to give an opportunity to SIMPLE/XCAP?
I'm sure that Kamailio is faster and more efficient than any existing
XMPP server to route messages. Let's keep it!
Yeah :)
What does
"without SIMPLE" mean?
A phone without SIMPLE. Just SIP for calls, and XMPP for IM and presence.
In short: A failure for everyone that believes in SIMPLE. I will no
accept such kind of "hack" (a multiprotocol client). SIMPLE
is capable of offering similar services as XMPP does. Just
implementations are needed. And this will never achieved if we insist
on using XMPP "because SIMPLE is not mature yet".
Keep on fighting! 
13 Oct
13 Oct
12:53 p.m.
On 09.10.2009 11:42 Uhr, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Yeah :)
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* Kamailio SIP Masterclass, Nov 9-13, 2009, Berlin
* http://www.asipto.com/index.php/sip-router-masterclass/
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
Nobody wants to give an opportunity to SIMPLE/XCAP?
I'm sure that Kamailio is faster and more efficient than any existing
XMPP server to route messages. Let's keep it!
SIMPLE presence specs are more laborious, allowing more complex
services. There is a future for it, as it is for SIP. If xmpp/jingle
targets telephony, it will end in the same complex environment as SIP.
There are couple of mistakes in SIP specs, could have been more strict
in requirements, but what makes it very complex is the large set of
functionalities it wants to solve. Making call between two users is
easy, changing presence between 2 users is easy as well (end-to-end).
Cheers,
Daniel
What does
"without SIMPLE" mean?
A phone without SIMPLE. Just SIP for calls, and XMPP for IM and presence.
In short: A failure for everyone that believes in SIMPLE.
I will no accept such kind of "hack" (a
multiprotocol client). SIMPLE
is capable of offering similar services as XMPP does. Just
implementations are needed. And this will never achieved if we insist
on using XMPP "because SIMPLE is not mature yet".
Keep on fighting!
1:14 p.m.
El Martes, 13 de Octubre de 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
SIMPLE presence specs are more laborious, allowing
more complex
services.
Yes, I'm very happy because within 25 years my dishwasher will know the
advanced presence status of my microwave :)
There are couple of mistakes in SIP specs, could have
been more strict
in requirements, but what makes it very complex is the large set of
functionalities it wants to solve. Making call between two users is
easy,
changing presence between 2 users is easy as well
(end-to-end).
Not so easy if two phones are registeres with same SIP account and both
publish presence status ;)
Using a presence server this means a NOTIFY with two <tuples>. However RFC's
specs don't state which should be the behaviour of a watcher when reveiving a
NOTIFY with two tuples.
Also, a user could publish <person> and/or <device> sections.
What happens if phone_A (sip:alice@domain.org) publishes a <person> section
containing "Display-Name = Alice YEAH" and phone_B (also sip:alice@domain.org)
publishes a <person> section containing "Display-Name = SuperAlice"?
RFC's say *nothing* about it. They "talk" about a presence composer (a node
in
the presence server which should "mix" the presentities but doesn't specify
how. In this point OMA does specify it.
A very complex world... :)
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
5526
days inactive
5533
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Olle E. Johansson -
Victor Pascual Avila