Posts categorized "Standards"

Watch the Royal Wedding? Or talk about XMPP? Join VUC on April 29th for an XMPP-fest

VucSo which would you rather do? Watch the Royal Wedding? Or talk about all things XMPP with a bunch of VoIP and telephony geeks?

If you'd prefer the latter, then join the VUC conf call at 12 noon US Eastern on Friday, April 29, for a lengthy dive into all things XMPP. (XMPP being the "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol" originally known as the Jabber protocol.)

As noted on the show page the session will feature Emil Ivov of Jitsi.org (formerly SIP Communicator) and Thiago Rocha Camargo (of Nimbuzz) and is going to cover a whole range of topics:

  • What is XMPP/Jabber
  • How does one do telephony with XMPP
  • How does XMPP/Jingle compare to SIP and (why) is it better.
  • Who supports it
  • Facebook and their XMPP gateway
  • Google Talk
  • Nimbuzz – one of the biggest VoIP providers using XMPP as their primary protocol
  • NAT traversal
  • How does one do it with XMPP
  • Again, how is this part different from what we have with SIP
  • Media relaying with TURN and Jingle Nodes

I am a big fan of XMPP on the IM/messaging side so I'm very much looking forward to this conversation.

You can join the live call via SIP, Skype or the regular old PSTN. There is also an IRC backchannel that gets heavy usage during the call. It will be recorded so you can always listen later.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



NetworkWorld interviews SIP pioneer and now Skyper Jonathan Rosenberg

jdr.jpg This week Network World ran a great interview with Jonathan Rosenberg about his new role at Skype. Jonathan is now the "Chief Technology Strategist" at Skype, but he's known in the industry as one of the co-authors of the original RFC 3261 that defines the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and also for his many years working at Cisco. He's been extremely active within the IETF, writing a seriously large quantity of Internet-Drafts. I think, in fact, I first met JDR at an IETF meeting... and subsequently was on at least one panel with him (I think a VoiceCon or Interop in New York).

It's been interesting to watch Skype accumulate more and more people with strong SIP backgrounds, and hiring Jonathan was definitely an interesting - and good - move on Skype's part.

I don't know that the Network World interview broke any amazing new ground for those of us who have been watching Skype closely, but if you haven't been paying attention to Skype, Jonathan gives a great view into what the company has been doing lately and where it is going. It is definitely worth a read.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed, following me on Twitter or subscribing to my email newsletter.



What is new in VoiceXML 3? Join this free webinar tomorrow (May 20)

vxml3.jpgWhat is different in the upcoming VoiceXML 3 specification from the W3C? How will it help you create better communication applications? How can you get ready for VXML 3?

If you are curious about what the VoiceXML 3 effort is all about, Voxeo is hosting a free webinar tomorrow, Thursday, May 20, 2010, at 11 am US Eastern time where one of the co-chief editors of the specification, Dan Burnett, will talk about these questions and more.

Registration is free and you can register online. It should be a very informative session.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed, following me on Twitter or subscribing to my email newsletter.



IETF 74 starts next week in San Francisco...

ietflogo.jpgThe 74th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) starts Monday morning out in San Francisco. As usual there is a packed agenda with a lot of great discussions going on. This one is particularly interesting for those of us involved in the "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure (RAI)" area - which is all the various working groups related to SIP and other real-time communications protocols - as there are some proposals moving forward to rather fundamentally restructure the ways in which SIP-related work moves through the IETF. I expect there will be many involved conversations going on out there next week.

As much as I would like to be there, I won't be physically out at IETF 74. It's not my new role at Voxeo keeping me away, but rather this... oh... wee minor little detail that my wife is now five weeks from giving birth to our second child! :-) At this stage of things I'm severely limiting my travel - and flights across the country are definitely out.

Instead I'll be participating remotely, listening to the audio streams and joining in the Jabber chat rooms. Probably writing about some of it over on the "Speaking of Standards" blog I write in from time to time. The great thing with IETF meetings is that you can participate remotely (albeit obviously not to the same level of effectiveness as being in the room).

Lots of good stuff going on...


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed or following me on Twitter or identi.ca.


Technorati Tags: , ,


Do the IM protocol wars even matter? Adium and the continued *client* unification of IM...

Do you care any more about zillion different IM services? Do you care about the IM protocol wars that have plagued the usage of IM for the last years?

Odds are that if you are an IM user like me, you probably don't. Why not? Simple... we've unified the IM services on the client side and basically stopped caring about the various services and protocols.

adiumaccounttypes.jpgI was reminded of this fact this morning when I received a message saying that an update was available for Adium on my Mac that solved a really annoying disconnection problem with Yahoo!Messenger. (And if you are a Yahoo IM user, you really need to get the 1.3.2b1 beta.)

[NOTE: An equivalent to Adium for Windows or Unix/Linux users is Pidgin.]

Somewhat ironically, there was a discussion going on in a Skype groupchat in which I participate about the various IM protocols and whether anyone really used GTalk, etc. Since I was updating Adium at the time, I took a moment to look at all the different protocols that Adium now supports... as seen in the screenshot on the right side of this post. If I look at my own usage, I use Adium to unify:

  • AIM (two accounts)
  • MSN/Windows Live Messenger
  • Yahoo!Messenger (two accounts)
  • Google Talk
  • Jabber (two more other than GTalk)
  • LiveJournal
  • Facebook
  • Bonjour
All of those in one client with one directory of users and one window for chats (each on their own tab - and yes, I could have chats in separate windows but I generally choose not to do so).

It's a beautiful thing.

Now you might say... so why do you have all these services, anyway? Well, I've been online since the mid-1980's and generally my work has always involved keeping up with new technology, so I've always dabbled in various services and slowly you develop this accretion of new IM accounts - each that different friends and others use. At one point I did run multiple clients but now just for my own sanity I use just one IM client (actually two, but more on that below).

THE ENTERPRISE ANGLE

The curious aspect that caught my attention was the support Adium has for enterprise IM systems. The list directly includes Lotus Sametime and Novell GroupWise. Jabber support can of course work with internal Jabber servers and SIP/SIMPLE support could work with platforms supporting SIMPLE. Does that include Microsoft OCS? I don't know, but it would be interesting if it did.

What's great about all this is that you again have a single IM client that lets you have a single directory for corporate contacts as well as personal contacts. Adium's interface nicely lets you have a single entry for a person with multiple IM contacts, so you can unify your directory to be able to reach people in different contexts.

THE DOWN SIDE

The down side of a single client is that of course you are in the old "jack of all trades, master of none" scenario. You can receive IM messages from all the various services. You can send IM messages to them. But you can't necessarily use all the features of the given service. You have one set of status states, which may or may not map to all the status states available on your service (for instance, maybe the IM service has a status "out for dinner"). I haven't tried it with recent Adium builds, but in the past when I wanted to do an encrypted Jabber session, I had to switch to using Psi. I haven't tried file transfer using the various services via Adium, so I don't know how that works. I'm not aware that voice and video works over those services via Adium. Each IM service tries to differentiate with unique features - and they aren't always supported by all-in-one clients like Adium.

The other down side is "status messages" or "mood messages" that you can set in the IM clients. I have absolutely no idea what my status message in GTalk is, for instance, because I never use it in its native form in a web browser or as a standalone client. I have no idea what my MSN advisory message is for the same reason. Now maybe there's a way to set that in Adium which I don't know about... but maybe not. It's the price you pay for using a unified client.

Now, on the plus side, you never see the ads that IM services wrap their own IM clients in. (Which of course is a down side for the service provider.)

THE MISSING IM SERVICE

If you look at that long list of IM services with which Adium can interconnect, there is one obvious glaring omission:

Skype

When I wrote earlier that I actually have to run two IM clients, it's because Skype does not allow Adium (or other all-in-one IM clients) to interconnect to its network. So I run two IM clients:

  • Skype to IM with Skype contacts
  • Adium to IM with contacts on all the other services

Now the reality is that I can't see technically how a client like Adium would join into the P2P clouds that make up Skype groupchats. Skype's P2P architecture is very different from the server-based architecture of all the services listed above. So it may be that such an interconnect may not be possible for group chats... and since I use those extensively, I might always have to be running the Skype client natively. Still, there might be a way to interconnect via SIP/SIMPLE... and perhaps that's something Skype will consider as part of the larger Skype interconnect issues.

SO DO WE CARE ABOUT IM PROTOCOL WARS?

I don't. I've opted out of the battle by using a unified IM client. Sure, I may lose out on some of the unique features of the different services... but I have one directory and one way to send and receive IM messages.

What about you? Do you use a unified IM client like Adium or Pidgin? Or do you run multiple clients? Or do you only use one service?

P.S. Walt Mossberg over at the Wall Street Journal had a post on this issue reviewing some other clients back in August.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Down at IETF 71 in Philadelphia this week

ietflogo.jpgThis week (March 10-14) finds me down in Philadelphia for IETF-71, the 71st meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (the people who write the standards for the Internet). I don't honestly know how much I'll be blogging here on this blog. I do hope to be writing some over at the "Speaking of Standards" blog on Voxeo's site. We'll see. These meetings tend to be rather intense.

If you'd like to follow along with what's happening here at IETF, I've written up some instructions about how to join in the audio streaming and IM group chats. I've also posted what I think will be my schedule, which will give you a sense of what the various VoIP-related sessions.

That's the news...

Technorati Tags: , ,


The EComm 2008 Interview with Skype's Jonathan Christensen should be required reading...

42F19C6B-67C5-433E-91B4-641B9323CD48.jpgAs we enter into the final month before eComm 2008, I would suggest that the interview with Jonathan Christensen, Skype's general manager of audio and video, should be required reading for anyone seriously interested in this space. Why? Well, in part because Jonathan Christensen does provide some good information about what Skype has done and is doing but also because it provides some good insight into what one of the people driving Skype's agenda is thinking about this space. Take one of the final paragraphs where he answered Lee Dryburgh's question about what he saw as the the future of communications (bold emphasis added by me):
Well, a big question I guess and, having worked on the space for quite a while, I think that it's only going to get more interesting over the coming years since, well, like this open spectrum for example. You know, I just have to reiterate, I think that anybody who has not figured out that the Internet is the platform and that there isn't any such thing as walled gardens that will survive, or sub-networks [such as AOL tried] that are going to survive, those people are doomed. The intersection of these worlds is going to be chaotic. It's going to be violent. It's going to be messy for a while but it is going to happen, and the Internet will survive as the one open platform. You are going to see a trend towards extreme innovation at the edges - on the devices, in the PC platform, in software, all around the edge of the Internet.

I think that you are only going to see further disruption of the telecom industry and the emergence of totally new businesses that we can't imagine today. I think that [the] net result, that drives me every day, is that we're going to have this very rich, open, cheap and accessible communications. This is going to be not just a game changer for the telecom industry, but will be a change agent for all of humanity. So, a platform that allows us all to see each other and hear each other more clearly maybe makes us a little bit less crazy, less polarized and more open as a world society.

Good stuff... and the whole interview is worth a read. Given my recent criticism of Skype, I'm particularly pleased to read the comments I emphasized in bold. Jonathan Christensen will be giving one of the keynotes at eComm 2008, March 12-14 in Silicon Valley and if you haven't considered going, I would encourage you to do so. It should be a great event!

P.S. I also wrote about this interview in relation to SIP over on Voxeo's "Speaking of Standards" blog.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


IETF "RUCUS" BOF to be held about SPIT...

Over on the Voice of VOIPSA blog today I posted about a new session has been approved for the IETF 71 meeting coming up in Philadelphia in March called "Reducing Unwanted Communications using SIP" a.k.a. "RUCUS".Hannes Tschofenig, who submitted the proposal, has created a RUCUS web page and is looking for feedback. I'm planning to be at the RUCUS session at IETF 71 and would encourage others who want to talk about voice spam / SPIT to join in as well!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Skype says "No" to VoIP interoperability - *because customers aren't asking for it!* - Well, I am!

skype_logo.pngSo Skype says that they have no plans for interoperability with other VoIP systems because their customers aren't asking for it??

By way of Dameon Welch-Abernathy today I learned of Phil Wolff's post back in December about ZDNet's interview (Got all that? ;-) with Skype's VP of telecoms, Stefan Oberg. The article was primarily about Skype's London phone number debacle, but this was the part that most irritated me:

Another issue which may concern business users of VoIP is the Enum registry, which aims to unite not only the various VoIP providers — referred to by some as "islands" due to their lack of interconnection with each other — but the entire VoIP and traditional telephony worlds.

Asked whether Skype had considered opening up its famously closed communications protocols, Oberg claimed that there had been no customer demand for interconnection. "[Customers] are not saying they would love to call a VoIP provider on a different network," he said. "Customers are asking for better video and better conference calling. If it is something that customers really ask for, we would consider it, but it is very easy for anyone to get on the island."

Well, Mr. Oberg, here is one paying customer of Skype who can state unequivocally:

"I would love to call a VoIP provider on a different network!"

Here's the thing, Mr. Oberg. There are a whole lot of us out there who are looking to build the next voice communication network. We're looking forward to the day when today's PSTN is just some story that greybeards get together and reminisce about. ("Remember when we used to have to dial numbers? And wait for the connections? And remember how much we had to pay our phone companies for the privilege? And remember those 'busy signals'?") We're looking to make it simpler and easier and so that ultimately voice just smoothly fits in to our communication as one of the several different ways we communicate. (others being text/IM, video, etc.)

The funny thing is that many, if not most, of us experimenting with what will be next are Skype users. Probably in many cases paying Skype users since we have Skype Credit and SkypeIn numbers. Because, like you said, Skype makes it "very easy for anyone to get on the island." You do a lot of things right. You've got a very simple and easy-to-use client. Your directory is good. Your use of wideband audio usually gives outstanding audio quality. Your ability to work from very different network environments and through firewalls is great. Some of us love that everything you do is encrypted. You work across the major computing platforms. You make a great product and because you have hit a critical mass with so many of us there, we like to use your product.

But... with statements like this you're living in the same delusion that Facebook has been in until recently. You see, there's this wee tiny little problem:

You are NOT the only island!

Sure, you're probably the largest island with the most parties and easiest docks to land at. But there are a lot of other islands out there. Some of them are other services with whom you admittedly compete. Some are startups. Some of them are the traditional carriers now offering VoIP services to consumers and businesses. A lot of other islands are the companies and organizations now wiring themselves up with IP-PBXs or using back office software from Microsoft or IBM to "voice-enable" their infrastructure. Ditto for some cities and towns that are doing the same thing. In some cases, those islands are wiring voice so far into their business processes and systems that it's truly amazing.

Now some of us, seeing all these islands out there, say... "Hmmm... why don't we just connect the dots?" Let's build some bridges or high-speed ferries between those islands. Let's get them talking together. Let's interconnect the islands and build the new infrastructure. Let's bypass the old PSTN and build the new voice network entirely across the Internet. Let's forget all about those geographic boundaries... let's let voice flow to wherever wherever someone can get an IP address. Anywhere. Anytime. Let's interconnect business systems with other voice systems.

And you know what? We're doing it. Slowly. Very slowly at times. But we're doing it. We're using protocols like SIP and RTP and all the many others coming out of the IETF. We're creating "mashups" and using XML flavors like VoiceXML and CCXML to weave voice into the web. We're starting the interconnection. We're enabling businesses to connect to each other and dial each other directly. We're using SIP trunking to let local systems make and receive phone calls from other parts of the world. We're giving people their choice of endpoint... they can use a range of "hard" phones (traditional pieces of hardware) or "soft" phones (like you are). People can ring my deskphone simply by calling "[email protected]" using their SIP phone... goodbye hard-to-remember telephone numbers... hello user names.

Oh, sure, we've got lots of problems still to work out. Security is a huge one. You are extending your trust boundary out to include other networks. How do you know they won't send you tons of voice spam? Or abuse your network? Or run up bills on your dime? Privacy is another one. How do you show others only the information you want to? Sooner or later the various governments and tax authorities are going to wake up and realize how badly they are going to be screwed out of revenue by all we are doing - and we're going to have to deal with that. We've still got to agree on how to do certain features between systems. We've got a lot of work to do.

But we're doing it. We're rewiring the phone system. We're creating a new one, not shackled by its history.

The question for you all at Skype seems to be whether or not you want to help build that larger interconnected world. Or whether you want to just hang out on your island and hope that if you throw big enough parties and advertise "Free Beer" enough that everyone will forget about their own islands and just come over and join yours.

You know what? You'll get a lot of people to come on over. Today. And probably for some time. You've got a fun island to hang out on.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will keep on with our rewiring and remixing. We're building the fabric of what comes next. We're coding the DNA for the future of voice. We'd love it if you joined us. I'd love it. It would be great if I could call my colleagues on SIP extensions from directly within Skype. Not through some Skype-to-PBX gateway that really winds up running multiple instances of Skype... but through an actual SIP gateway. I'd love it if I could give them a SIP address like "[email protected]" that they could use to call me on my Skype client wherever I was. You know, I'd probably wind up using my Skype client more if I had that capability! You have a great UI. Why shouldn't I add my SIP contacts there, too?

What SIP contacts you say? Yes, clearly I'm an "early adopter"... one of those geeks who goes around chasing bright shiny objects. Guilty as charged. But each day what I do is becoming easier and easier for others to do. And you know what? If you supported SIP contacts, those of us who talk and write about topics like this would probably do a lot to evangelize you. We'd actually help you with your marketing.

Now you do make this excellent point:

"In order to provide richness, we have to create our own protocols," Oberg added. "SIP and the standard [VoIP] protocols simply can't do it."

You're right. Almost all the traditional vendors in the VoIP space do use their own proprietary protocols to give the rich communication experience people want. Cisco. Nortel. Avaya. Alcatel. Mitel. Others. But you know what? Their hold on the market is being disrupted. Lots of new players coming in. Big ones like Microsoft and IBM - who are interestingly supporting the open standards we're using. So the traditional vendors are evolving, too. They're supporting SIP for interconnection. Sure, they still have their parties on their islands and show people how great it is there, but they do allow bridges to be built. They understand the need to interconnect.

You're right, too, in that SIP only supports basic calls. We know that. We're working on it. So come join us. Join the IETF mailing lists. Send someone to IETF 71 in Philadelphia in March. Advocate for how we should interconnect to you. Building the Interconnect is long, often glacially-slow work, full of many people with different agendas, many of whom will all disagree. Join with us. You'll lose some battles and win others. But together we might just have a chance at making it all happen.

Or... just keep hanging out on your island throwing parties and trying to attract new people. Maybe it will work.

In the meantime, please don't say that customers aren't asking for interoperability. Count me as one who is:

"I would love to call a VoIP provider on a different network!"

I bet if I ask around, a few of the people I know would like that, too.

If you read this far, thank you for listening. You can now return to your island. Meanwhile, we've got some rewiring to do...

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Introducing "Speaking of Standards", a new Voxeo blog about industry standards, IETF, W3C, SIP Forum, etc.

200711292028A large part of why I have NOT been writing here all that much in the past few weeks is that I've been busy in my new role with Voxeo working on a corporate blog portal. I've been covering a bit of that odyssey over on my Disruptive Conversations blog as well as in my weekly reports into the For Immediate Release podcast. It's been a great amount of work but also a lot of fun - I've been very lucky to have a colleague who does amazing things with CSS and graphics, and so the sites look a whole lot better than they would if I were left to my own devices.

I'm very pleased to say, now, that we've reached the point where I'm willing to link to our work and talk a bit about what we are doing. The main blog portal is the predictable "blogs.voxeo.com" but the weblog that we're really starting to use and could be of interest to readers of this blog is our "Speaking of Standards" blog found at:

http://blogs.voxeo.com/speakingofstandards/

I've obviously been very occasionally writing here about standards and some of that may continue, but I expect most of my writing on the subject will now occur over on this new Voxeo weblog - and I'll naturally be writing more on the subject. We'll be writing about the IETF and SIP standards, but also the W3C and standards such as VoiceXML and CCXML that I've never covered at all here. We'll be linking to events and tutorials we find and generally providing whatever information we can about standards affecting our industry, as well as Voxeo's views and implementations of those standards.

Why would Voxeo sponsor a weblog about standards? Primarily because the company and our products are all about open standards - which was one of the things that attracted me to the company after they first approached me. I've since learned that they've been leading the IVR industry in adopting open standards. As the products page says in the "Fast Facts" sidebar:

  • 100% Standards based IVR
  • Supports W3C VoiceXML 2.0
  • Supports W3C CCXML 1.0
  • Supports W3C SRGS 1.0
  • Supports W3C SSML 1.0
  • Supports CallXML 3.0
  • First platform with XML call control
  • First platform with XML conferencing
  • First shipping CCXML implementation
  • First SIP/VOIP IVR platform

Not bad, eh? Add to that the fact that our CTO (my manager), RJ Auburn, chairs the W3C's Working Group on CCXML and we've hired other folks involved with standards efforts... all of that is why we added a weblog on standards.

So if you would like to see our view on industry standards, find tutorials about various standards or learn about standards-related events we may be attending, I would invite you to come on over and check out "Speaking with Standards" - or subscribe to the RSS feed. While I (and others) will still be working on improving the site, it's mostly done and I'm delighted to be able to return to writing more. Let us know what you think!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,