Google, Jabber, and Jingle

An anonymous reader writes "Jabber has published the experimental draft Jingle specs, which extend XMPP for use in voice over IP (VoIP), video, and other peer-to-peer multimedia sessions. Google released an open-source library called 'Libjingle' on SourceForge. Libjingle is a set of components provided by Google that let your programs interoperate with Google Talk's peer-to-peer and voice calling capabilities. The package includes source code for Google's implementation of Jingle and Jingle-Audio."

References...

Google has an informative page wich includes all related links, etc... Here [google.com]

Re:References...

Yeah... The BETA is out tomorrow. It's called "Gaim-vv" [sourceforge.net]

Psi Support

Psi, one of the most popular Jabber clients out there has announced that they are working on support for jingle. http://psi-im.org/forum/post/24491 [psi-im.org]

I see...

This is some sort of christmas joke, right?

Spam

Not to be cynical or redundant but they're really, really going to have to implement some kind of user rating system or spam control on the server, because I'm not going to log on to their network just to get a lot of w33n0rp0rn.

I have the only w33n0r I think I need to see when logging on.

Re:Spam

That's why Google hasn't opted to add Server-to-Server communication yet; if you're on their server, they can kick your ass off and ban you, but coming from other servers it's a lot more difficult to regulate (and I'm sure they've got someone working on it with their 20% free time).

As for the person who said it sounds like BS being named "Jingle"; A lot of people say "I'll give you a ring" as a way of saying they'll call you later. Thus, Jingle (a ringing sound).

Re:Spam

(and I'm sure they've got someone working on it with their 20% free time).

The 20% idea is for, like you said, free time. I think you are right, that they will work on some sort of spam control for third-party server's, but it will be an 80% project, something the company assigns, not a free time project.

Though, having a preference that says a user will only accept (or be bothered with requests from) user's already in their buddy list would seem to solve this for the most part. These settings have been around for years (on AIM, atleast, where you can have only Buddy List members IM you, as a form of spam/parental control).

Re:Spam

Instant packet network protocol (instant message) vs. Delayed message network protocol (email); apples to oranges comparison.

Google has a HUGE database of spam emails to compare a suspect email to; doing the same with Instant Messages would instantly through privacy nuts into convolutions (much like gmail did when it started; ZOMG GOOGLES READING MY IMZ), but is entirely possible to do. So it's not far-fetched that they use a similar system, but it's a lot more work to convince people to use this system.

A better solution would be to find a way to keep spam from coming in without reading the IMs in the first place. But, if I had an answer to that problem, I would be working for Google. You could opt for encryption, but as soon as an encrypted spammer arrived, you'd be up shit's creek even further than you are now (as decrypting someone's IMs would be even worse for Google PR). So for now, Google's opted to keep its doors closed to the public, and that's just fine. Don't like it? Go use another Instant Messaging protocol which means you have to go through someone elses server anyways. But the way I look at it is "I trust Google more than I trust Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL combined; I'd rather use Google's service".

PS: (Oh, and if you think running your own Jabber server is a way around it, what do you think happens when you want to message someone off server? That's right, your message goes through someone elses server. That means they could be spying on you! Oh noes! To tell you the honest truth, I'd rather have the security in numbers of a huge company's client, then chancing my message through someone's private server; the huge company's more likely to have a lot more imporant things on its mind than reading people's IMs...)

Re:Spam

Spam? on Jabber? This is news to me.

Jabber has built in anti spam. In order for me to talk to you, I have to ask you if I can, and then you have to tell me that it's OK. This is part of the Jabber protocol itself. Google Talk has no reason not to turn on server-to-server connectivity. They're limiting their usefulness by leaving it off. I really do wish they would turn it on because I already run my own Jabber server, and my Jabber ID is the same as my email address. I'm confident that gaim [sf.net] will support Jingle soon, so all Google needs to do is enable s2s support and I can completely ditch AOL IM and stop signing into Google Talk.

I want to ditch AOL IM because lately AOL IM has turned to crap, with their auth-servers (the servers that verify your screen name and password) successfully authenticating me, and then redirecting me to a chat server (commonly known as a BOS server) that is dead. Dead as a doorknob. -ECONNREFUSED. And if I mash reconnect enough times while they continue to direct me to a broken chat server, they put a ban on me for trying to sign in!

Re:Spam

Jabber has built in anti spam. In order for me to talk to you, I have to ask you if I can, and then you have to tell me that it's OK.

CHECK.IT.OUT.PENIS.ENLARGMENT.CHEAP@BIGGER-PENIS.N ET would like to talk to you.

server-to-server

Now if google would just implement server-to-server jabber connections, this might be useful!

Re:server-to-server

Someone noted on one of the Google Talk mailing lists that as of the 9th of December Gmail's DNS has contained the SRV record necessary for other Jabber servers to send messages to the talk.google.com server (previously only the SRV record for clients was there), so it looks like it's definitely coming soon.

Also a beta of GAIM 2.0 is due today supposedly containing support for Jingle-Audio, so it looks like things are really starting to move in the Google Talk/Jabber camp.

i want conference mode and pocketpc voice client

Let's hope someone can now develop a Gtalk pocketpc application with voice. While they are at it: add conference mode to Gtalk; in business environments it's very handy.

Re:i want conference mode and pocketpc voice clien

last time i checked they didn't have a voip client for linux either. you can use jabber'over'gaim to use gtalk itself but you're unable to make the calls. let's hope this library makes it possible.

until then, i stay with the hype-skype which works rather well (if you don't mind the cpu and network overheads ...)

broken links

Of all the people to have a broken link... Did anyone else try the "Home Page" link on the SF project description?

Crap! No Christmas vacation this year...

I currently implement Jabber functionality into my project's code.

I better lock the door before my pointy haired boss comes in: "This looks interesting. I want VoIP before you can go home for Christmas."

Now only if..

All these instant messagers and voice applications could somehow communicate so would not need to have so many on my computer. Even if the communication was on lowest common denominator, could use the ones I like and atleast communicate somehow with people using others.. oh well.. not likely to happen soon I guess.

Re:Now only if..

First, use a conglomerated client. That'll alleviate a great deal of stress alone.

Secondly, Google (amongst others) are trying to combat this problem, which is why they're trying so hard on their "federation" of VoIP providers (better to have a lot of providers on the same protocol than a bunch of providers speaking different languages and not being able to intercommunicate).

Lastly, if Google does end up acquiring AOL, this will be a major coup. Microsoft and Yahoo have already gotten in bed together, which only leaves Google and AOL as players. If Microsoft acquired AOL (which hopefully would be blocked through anti-trust litigation, if the SEC opened its eyes [Don't even get me started with AT&T]), it'd be all verses one, and we'd pretty much have that talk anywhere infrastructure you wish for. But, to be truthful, I'd rather it not happen that way.

It seems like it would be a trivial task to make a message passer; a client that simply accepted messages from one protocol, translated it to the other and sent out the message using a pre-programmed username/password combination. In a lot of ways, AJAX-IM clients are already doing this (ajax-form -> rewrite script -> IM protocol -> IM Server); why not make the same service? (other than the obvious takedown requests you'd get from AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo).

Re:Now only if..

If [ceruleanstudios.com] only [sourceforge.net] someone [jdennis.net] would [kde.org] code [everybuddy.com] this [infoanarchy.org] idea [epicware.com].

Is the format wasting bits?

Using transcoded XML for binary audio support... I wonder if some bandwidth is wasted just because of the format (XML can't contain random binary data, so there's bit loss). Anyone checked deeper?

Re:Is the format wasting bits?

Just looking a bit deeper, but not too much, I think JEP-0166 outlines a handshaking protocol, but actual binary data transmission takes place on other channels, say over rtp or rtcp. It looks like when handshaking (signalling) takes place, a list of possible channel candidates are offered, but it's not clear to me how the accepting party tells the initiating party which candidate is chosen.

How does it fit in with...

...their system where the advertisers call you? It's safe to assume they'll be adopting the platform and munging it with some sort of phone connection to achieve this. This could be just the step they're looking for to lower costs and make more profit. And on top of that, how many other messengers have an open voice protocol? How long before we see extensions etc? And how long before some wisespark tries that Skypecasting [slashdot.org] thing with it? Since jabber can technically support any mime type, all we would need is for someone to plug theora into it and instantly it can be done.

Psi

And it's already working in Psi [psi-im.org], awesome.

Another voip protocol?

I don't see this as a good thing. There are already too many signalling protocols for voip. Another protocol just makes everything more messy.

Re:Another voip protocol?

Incorrect. SIP is a signalling protocol, same as Jingle.

To set up a connection to a SIP-capable device you typically use:
- SIP to signal intent to communicate (and to accept or refuse or redirect, etc)
- SDP to describe the coming transport session (which port, where do I send the data, which codec do I use, etc)
- RTP to use that SDP data to make the actual connection and send the encoded data.

Jingle replaces the SIP/SDP steps. Summary of operation, Romeo tries to call Juliet:
- Romeo initiates a call to Juliet, sends back either "refuse", "redirect" (to a cellphone client, say) or "provisionally accept".
- Romeo offers up several candidate transports that it can use. It either does this all at once (burst) or one by one (dribble), which is specified in the initation message.
- Juliet offers up several candidate transports (RTP, G.711 codec, frex) that it can use.
- Once concensus is reached over a suitable transport, Jingle switches to "in progress" and RTP takes over. If concensus is impossible the connection ends.
- Finally, Jingle politely closes (and confirms) to end the conversation.

The two processes achieve the same endgoal: getting VoIP data from A to B. An advantages here is that SIP isn't very lightweight in terms of correct implementations, while Jingle can be 'spoken' by any client that can do XMPP as long as you add the statemachine.

Perhaps they can combine the names...

... and call their sweet new product Gibber.

About Time

IM clients are the obviousplace to strapon VOIP communication. The jabber system would be a perfect VOIP framework. Your "number" will simply be your JabberID. Which is similar to an email address, so it's easy to remember.

You'll simply dial something like "[e-mail]" to complain to Taco about the preponderance of dupes, and Taco can simply add your address "[e-mail]" to his ignore list.

If telemarketers become a problem, some kind of del.ico.us system might enable VOIP users to share a list of banned domains or addresses. Potential for abuse etc, etc.

Key point here is that a system based on "email" like addresses would be batter and easier to remember than the current telecoms number based system.

Great...

So does this mean we can drop the already dead H.323 protocol and replace it with Jingle in Asterisk?

Alternative Library Name

They couldn't have come up with something better than libjingle?

What about libjingoober?

Or better yet, just a library without that jingle crap called libgoober?

How about Jabber / Talk for a LAN?

About a month ago I looked high and low for an open source, multiplatform VoIP solution for our company's LAN. I found a few great jabber servers, but much to my surprise/dismay, I couldn't find any clients that supported voice, only text IM.

What? Nobody has posted this yet?!

Google, Jaber, Jingle. You can hear my sleigh bells ring. I am 'ol Kris Kringle. I'm the king of jing-le-ing!

Jingle all the way to the bank?

Hopefully the Asterisk devs will implement this and quick. I'm dying for something like MS Live Communications Server (with the Office Communicator) that works with Asterisk.

Ubuntu Breezy packages

Add this line to your /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://lumumba.uhasselt.be/takis/breezy [uhasselt.be] ./

Or fetch the individual packages:
http://lumumba.uhasselt.be/~takis/breezy/libjingle 0_0.1.0-1_i386.deb [uhasselt.be]
http://lumumba.uhasselt.be/~takis/breezy/libjingle -dev_0.1.0-1_i386.deb [uhasselt.be]

Re:I'm not interested...

Good for you! Meanwhile, for the rest of us who aren't paranoid/Google-bashers, this is a boon, including Jabber users (you know, this will work for your Jabber server too, right? ;)

Besides, Google hasn't implemented Server-to-Server communication yet for reasons posted elseware in this very article; they don't want spam. It's harder to validate posts coming from offserver without actually reading them, which would breech your privacy, right? (On server they have the option of reading it [via EULA], post rate limiting, banning accounts, etc)

So please, next time Google (or $BIG_COMPANY) gives the open source world a donation and a piece of code it's been needing for a while now, take it as a gift, and try not to be so critical about it. Thanks.

Re:I'm not interested...

The fact that they're releasing the spec and an open-source library should mean that once your Jabber client has Jingle support you can chat with anyone on any server that will peer with yours. Now, granted, that doesn't include their server, but that's their loss; you could just go to some other random server that would allow it.

Yeah, server-to-server would be cool, but we already have server-to-server and it works as long as it stays small enough that the spammers don't notice. Google wants to make this thing huge, and if they do, spammers will notice.