Le mercredi 01 d�cembre 2004 � 15:34 +0000, Richard Dobson a �crit : > > Notice that voip-presence and im-presence are not entirely unrelated: > No but its unrelated enough to not be correct as an extension to IM > presence, as I and others have repeatedly said.
:-/ > > I really think that: > > * using presence isn't as stupid as you think ; > Its not just me that thinks it, and as you are new to jabber I would suggest > you listen to the people that have been working with it and developing with > it for a very long time (I myself have been working with jabber stuff since > before there was even a JSF). You must understand that people tend to be very very careful when said "You really, really need to first design a protocol!" by a protocol-geek... > > * using jabber:x:oob to send the uri isn't against the standard ; > > No using jabber:x:oob is the correct thing to send the URI in, but you are > using jabber:x:oob in a way that is wrong and will potensially cause serious > problems with backwards compatibility, sending a voip-uri in jabber:x:oob is > asking the recieving client to execute that URI and pass it right to the > appropriate application on the users system, which will likely cause them to > start a voip call, trying to use this as a way to say you are in a voip call > is simply wrong and against the spec. JEP-066, example 6? > > * it works _now_, and not in 10 years when people will have finished > > debatting the issue ; > > It wont work now due to the problems outlined above. Well, I did test my patch, and it does work... > > * it makes a very simple patch that has a chance to get upstream now ; > > It might be simple but it is still wrong. JEP-066 doesn't call what I do 'wrong', it says 'creative usage' ;-) > > Bad. You assume that deciding if the call is done or not is jabber's > > problem: it's not. There's a voip-client there: it will ask the user for > > confirmation. When someone has your voip-uri, you still have your word > > to say. > > > > Besides, aren't the presence packets only sent to contacts for which I > > already said they were authorized to know about me? > > Not always no, if for example you are in a chatroom the people in that room > will get your presence, and if you are adding your extension to presence > lots of people will know what your machines IP etc is, which is very bad, > jabber is designed in such a way that normally your IP address will not be > revealed to all and sundry, also when chatting to people you and adding them > to your contacts it doesnt mean you necessarily trust them enough to reveal > your ip address uncessarily, what about DDos attacks or the various buffer > overflow attacks that can be performed against a users machine once someone > has their IP? The VoIP software you speak of will do nothing to protect the > user from that. Arg. Point taken. > > Hmmm... as far as I remember, I had to allow my contacts to see me, and > > they had to decide they wanted to see me... so telling them "I'm there" > > isn't polluting the network, it's using it. > > But you are not just telling them you are there (thats what the standard IM > presence already does on its own), you are telling them extra information on > top of that which most will not want or need to know, thus the pollution, > its far better if only clients that want to receive said extra information > receive it, thus the need to use pubsub. Hmmm... but if I tell them I have voip, and their client allows them to get my voip-uri on demand... what's the difference? > Rushing through things just because you are impatient is never a good idea, > start working with us rather than fighting us and you will find this will go > much faster. Well, you'll notice that I wrote to ask, so I'm not that bad. > There are several separate tasks you seem to be trying to bunch together > here and in doing so you are not doing it the right way, the different tasks > I can see are as follows: > > 1) advertise a client is voip capable (this should be done using JEP-0030 > and JEP-0115). > 2) initiate a chat with another voip capable client (this should be done > using JEP-0020, then JEP-0066). > 3) advertise your voip-presence as something separate from the normal > im-presence (there is nothing currently to do this, but as has been said a > protocol based on pubsub is the best solution to this task). > > So overall you can do most of what you are trying to do now and right away > without having to wait for anything, it is only task 3 that needs a protocol > developed for it, and IMO step 3 is the least needed part of this and isnt > really even needed to get voip calling working in jabber clients, if I were > you I would just forget about task 3 for the moment and leave that for > sometime in the future, it really is not needed as you can use the > im-presence to notify other people you are on the phone (IMO you should be > just doing it this way anyway). Step 3 can wait. > Well if your "simple" patch is not following the standards I dont see them > even accepting that, if all you really want to do is allow people to call > each other using their im clients then you just need to implement Tasks 1 > and 2 outlined above and just forget about Task 3 (which IMO is not needed > anyway). Since the beginning of the thread, I modified the patch to send&accept <x xmlns='jabber:x:oob'> <url>h323:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</url> <desc>VoIP</desc> </x> in presence, and according to JEP-066, it follows the standard ; but your objections are a concern :-/ Back to the chalkboard :-/ JP _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
