Attached the architecture of XMPP and SIMPLE (OMA specifications) for a presence environment.
Self explanatory.
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
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net wrote:
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.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00560.html
Cheers,
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net:
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.
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.
9 okt 2009 kl. 11.25 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net:
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.
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!
/O
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net:
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.
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!
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!
Yeah :)
On 09.10.2009 11:42 Uhr, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/10/9 Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net:
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.
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
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!
Yeah :)
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
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... :)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Olle E. Johansson -
Victor Pascual Avila