10 Feb
2009
10 Feb
'09
4:58 p.m.
On 02/10/2009 04:44 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/2/10 Johansson Olle E <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
Nooo, forget XMPP!!
SIP SIMPLE already has enough cool specifications, the problem is that
nobody implements them!
:-) -- maybe SIP extension writers can learn from xmpp where they go
first for prototype implementation and then to standardization.
You are right, there are cool specification, but many do not map
properly to reality.
I have
been to XMPP interop, although they focused on Voice/Jingle, I
tried the new purple module -- still some things to sort out and I will
post a resume about this particular case and entire event.
I spent monday on the XMPP dev meeting a got a few ideas for improvements.
Looking for interoperability with XMPP will not help,
and I don't want
a future in which my softphone implements SIP for voice and XMPP for
presence/IM, that's a dirty workaround!
I think a competing open protocol is good all the time, makes things
improve in both sides. Apart of that, sip and xmpp does not really
match, SIP is more a routing-like protocol, while xmpp is a content-like
protocol. XMPP network exist and cannot be ignored.
A good usability of xmpp protocol will be communication between various
points of your environment, sip servers, web servers, etc...
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
10 Feb
10 Feb
5:05 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] [Kamailio-Devel] FOSDEM2009 - first remarks/photos
2009/2/10 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
Sure, I agree 100%, but it's what we have now and we must live with it :(
(sure you already know my opinion about IETF...)
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Nooo, forget
XMPP!!
SIP SIMPLE already has enough cool specifications, the problem is that
nobody implements them!
:-) -- maybe SIP extension writers can learn from xmpp where they go first
for prototype implementation and then to standardization.
5:22 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] [Kamailio-Devel] FOSDEM2009 - first remarks/photos
On 02/10/2009 05:05 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/2/10 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
Sure, I agree 100%, but it's what we have now and we must live with it :(
(sure you already know my opinion about IETF...)
right :-).
It is important to know that FOSDEM is hacker's meeting. Debates there
are very constructive. Particularly, I have learned several good hints
about presence. Sunday we discussed a bit how to make kamailio more
friendly to implement/deal simple presence extensions.
Here we get into XML content and XMPP folks have broad experience there.
It is where I got an idea to an issue pointed by Andreas Granig -
content based presence extensions.
Today the SIMPLE presence server implementation is monolithic,
everything has to be coded in presence_xml module. Next versions will
change a bit this aspect, will offer a better and easier interface to
develop extensions for same event and content-type.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
Nooo,
forget XMPP!!
SIP SIMPLE already has enough cool specifications, the problem is that
nobody implements them!
:-) -- maybe SIP extension writers can learn from xmpp where they go first
for prototype implementation and then to standardization.
5766
days inactive
5766
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo