Re: Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability

To augment the reasoning for being practical.

RTP media path uses ICE, which impose little to no burden on the SIP/XMPP gateway itself, the TURN servers of each domain are carrying the load burden in the worst case scenario when end-points cannot find a more direct media path.

Adrian


On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:

> With.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Roy, Radhika R CIV (US) wrote:
> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> I do not know which scenarios for SIMPLE-XMPP interworking are taken into
>> account:
>> 
>> 1. SIMPLE-XMPP without integration with audio and/or video?
>> 
>> 2. SIP/SIMPLE-XMPP with integration with audio and/or video?
>> 
>> Scenario 1 may be considered for an historical reason because XMPP came
>> first.
>> 
>> Scenario 2 will not be useful from practical point of view because SIP for
>> audio/video is firmly established in the market place and addition of
>> SIMPLE/Chat/IM does not cost anything. Interworking GW is unacceptable from
>> scalability and security point of view.
>> 
>> BR/Radhika
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Olle E. Johansson
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:47 PM
>> To: Mary Barnes
>> Cc: Adrian Georgescu; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Simple] Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability
>> 
>> 
>> 17 okt 2012 kl. 20:56 skrev Mary Barnes <[email protected]>:
>> 
>> 
>> 	I agree it's silliness that SIMPLE implementations have interop
>> issues right now.  I think the SIP-XMPP is further along that SIMPLE-SIMPLE.
>> I think that's because XMPP was done before SIMPLE - it's a matter of a
>> market decisions -i.e, jabber was available way before SIMPLE.  However, it
>> now seems that there are some deployments (e.g., Hannes' emergency services
>> scenario) that require SIMPLE-SIMPLE. I think we might be able to learn from
>> the SIP-XMPP - i.e., at least try to get the SIMPLE-SIMPLE to work for the
>> lowest common denominator situations.  I think the starting point for the
>> latter is to identify the current set of interop issues and determine
>> whether it's due to gaps in the specs or implementation decisions (as Olle
>> suggested at the beginning of this thread).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mary,
>> Thanks for your response. While it feels strange to suggest a focus on
>> SIMPLE-to-SIMPLE interoperability, something that should have been there
>> before, I think that's exactly what we need. 
>> 
>> All others following this list:
>> 
>> Please add your thoughts, possibly details (like Iñaki, Saul and Adrian have
>> done) in mail to this mailing list. With that information, we can try to put
>> together a document on "Issues in SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability" that can
>> be the platform for continued work to solve issues. Pour it out to the mail
>> archives!
>> 
>> Maybe we should try to define "SIMPLE" here. What I meant in the start of
>> this discussion was a plaform using SIP "presence" event package, using XCAP
>> for buddy lists and presence rules. (I might have missed something, so
>> please add).  I would add that we should limit the definition to documents
>> published by the IETF as RFCs in order to stay in focus. If there are things
>> clearly missing in the RFCs, point this out clearly.
>> 
>> If you've missed the previous detailed postings in this thread, they're
>> available in the mail archive for you to catch up.
>> 
>> Let's go.
>> 
>> /O
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	Mary. 
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 	
>> 
>> 
>> 		17 okt 2012 kl. 15:14 skrev Adrian Georgescu
>> <[email protected]>:
>> 		
>> 
>> 		>> It seems however IETF is plowing toward an
>> XMPP/SIP-SIMPLE inter-work solution.  Not sure what that will achieve.
>> 		
>> 		
>> 		That's fine, but a separate project. If the only way we can
>> get interoperability between SIMPLE implentations is using XMPP between
>> them, that feels like a stupid solution to me. I do want to be able to use
>> SIMPLE to communicate with other SIMPLE implementations. I want to be able
>> to use one SIMPLE client from one vendor on my smartphone and share the
>> address book/buddy list and presence ruleset with my other SIMPLE client on
>> the desktop.
>> 		
>> 		That's what customers expect. And that's not where we are
>> today with the IETF specs, and if I parse right, maybe not with the
>> inclusion of the 3rd party OMA specs.
>> 		
>> 
>> 		/O
>> 		_______________________________________________
>> 		Simple mailing list
>> 		[email protected]
>> 		https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>> <blockedhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple> 
>> 		
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>