Re: [Standards] Jingle: UDP relays

[Scott Ludwig]

On Aug 14, 2007 4:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> >> I am not sure of any other services than used for voip ( stun,
> >> stun-relay etc ).
> >
> > Not yet. ;-)
> >
> >> As in my eyes XEP-215 is doing only _stun._udp srv query ( may be its
> my
> >> eye problem ).
> >>
> >>  Now for adding turn we have to  modify XEp-215.What if somebody  want
> >> to use rsip instead of stun and stun-relay ? for the same reasons we
> >> started XEP-215 we have to  make another XEP or upgrade. Even for
> >> _stun.tcp , _stun.tls queries,  i am  sure XEP 215 will  be modified.
> >
> > You make a good point.
> >
> >> The best approach, in my opinion is to have a generic network service
> >> record framework and XMPP registrar to keep addition of services
> >> entries. The same framework can be used for network server offered
> >> service  or XMPP service (like muc ).
> >
> > Yes I think that is worth considering. I'll give it some more thought
> > over the new few days...
>
> Well, I thought about it some more.
>
> Please note something in XEP-0215:
>
> "This method should be used only as a fallback when DNS SRV lookups are
> not possible for the client or server."
>
> Now, I wonder why we're going to spend a lot of time defining something
> that is essentially DNS-SRV over XMPP. Why not encourage people to
> deploy SRV instead?


One practical reason is that the people who write code in the XMPP servers
are not always the same as the people who configure DNS records, at least in
larger organizations :) This seems like a problem that XMPP is well suited
for.

Another consideration: querying SRV records takes a fair bit of code and
complexity in the client on some platforms. It's easier for an XMPP client
to parse XMPP messages.



>
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>

Re: [Standards] Jingle: UDP relays

[Scott Ludwig]

On Aug 9, 2007 11:01 AM, Thiago Camargo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UDP Relays are just simple UDP routers.
> So you can bind Ports and IPs to the clients from your XMPP servers.
> Clients don't need to negotiate directly with Relay Servers(TURN for 
> instance).
> XMPP Servers can negotiate and allocate the tunnel to be used by the client.
>
> Check these drafts:
>
> http://www.gliffy.com/publish/1178640/
> http://www.gliffy.com/publish/1130091/
>
> Regards,
> Thiago

I suggest we just use STUN and TURN and get on with this.

It's true that a special case client can have a special relationship
with a server, and allocate candidates any way it wants, and establish
a standard jingle p2p connection as long as those candidates work as
regular remote candidate for the peer during ICE connectivity
establishment.

However, it would be nice for any Jingle compatible client to know how
to allocate address candidates from the service it is connected to. To
do this there needs to be standard protocols for discovering and using
these services. It's not complicated.

Describing N ways to allocate candidates isn't useful for anyone.
There is nothing very special about STUN and TURN technically, except
that they are established and work. Let's use them and move on.