Subject: [dispatch] Discussion (maybe) of combining XMPP and SIP in XMPP WG session on Wed. afternoon

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:22:58 -0500

Folks might remember that we had a discussion of this topic (known as
SIXPAC) at IETF-76 during a Friday afternoon session. A separate mailing
list was setup, but no announcement made to DISPATCH.  The topic was on the
agenda for XMPP at IETF-80 (opposite the exciting SPLICE session) and it
was decided at that meeting that there was not enough interest in the topic:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/xmpp.txt

There is a related item that may be discussed at the XMPP WG session next
week on Wednesday afternoon:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-xmpp.txt

Folks that were interested in this topic may want to follow it on the XMPP
WG mailing list and attend the session.

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:44:09 +0100

Thanks Mary!

The idea behind the draft is to handle SIP and XMPP coexistance (mostly)
at the client side:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax

It's similar to what was attempted with SIXPAC, the main difference
being that we don't want to standardize any new SIP headers or XMPP
stanza and only reuse existing things such as Contact headers for JID
discovery through SIP or VCARDs for SIP AOR retrieval from an XMPP
roster. The document is based on several deployments that we've
participated in and we think a BCP (or informational) form would suit it
well.

Needless to say all comments are most welcome.

Cheers,
Emil

P.S. We actually hesitated whether to submit this in DISPATCH or XMPP
and finally went for the latter. Of course, if people here also find it
interested we'd be happy to discuss it.

On 19.03.12 20:22, Mary Barnes wrote:
> list was setup, but no announcement made to DISPATCH.  The topic was on
> the agenda for XMPP at IETF-80 (opposite the exciting SPLICE session)
> and it was decided at that meeting that there was not enough interest in
> the topic:
> There is a related item that may be discussed at the XMPP WG session
> next week on Wednesday afternoon:
> Folks that were interested in this topic may want to follow it on the
> XMPP WG mailing list and attend the session. 
> 
> Regards,
> Mary 
> DISPATCH WG co-chair

-- 
http://jitsi.org

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:30:15 -0400

Emil, et al,

I'm glad you're pushing this ahead.  Having a dialog with folks about this
sort of thing outside the IETF, I posted this the other day:
http://www.packetizer.com/people/paulej/blog/30

It's just my ramblings, but basically:
 * We need a means of sharing address information for alternative protocols
 * We need to share presence information related to activities of separate
applications

In the end, I think this means that SIP devices need to implement a minimal
amount of XMPP in order to convey application state information for the
benefit of the XMPP clients.  Of course, the XMPP client would need to do
something similar for the benefit of the voice/video application.

What I have in my mind is that on my IP phone or on my IM client, I can see
the activity of the opposite device, allowing me to immediately initiate a
new mode of communication and without having to enter the opposite party's
address information.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Emil Ivov
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:44 AM
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: DISPATCH
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Discussion (maybe) of combining XMPP and SIP in
> XMPP WG session on Wed. afternoon
> 
> Thanks Mary!
> 
> It's similar to what was attempted with SIXPAC, the main difference being
> that we don't want to standardize any new SIP headers or XMPP stanza and
> only reuse existing things such as Contact headers for JID discovery
> through SIP or VCARDs for SIP AOR retrieval from an XMPP roster. The
> document is based on several deployments that we've participated in and we
> think a BCP (or informational) form would suit it well.
> 
> P.S. We actually hesitated whether to submit this in DISPATCH or XMPP and
> finally went for the latter. Of course, if people here also find it
> > SIXPAC) at IETF-76 during a Friday afternoon session. A separate
> > mailing list was setup, but no announcement made to DISPATCH.  The
> > topic was on the agenda for XMPP at IETF-80 (opposite the exciting
> > SPLICE session) and it was decided at that meeting that there was not
> > enough interest in the topic:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch