Slashdot Mirror
Jabber Could Get An IETF Working Group
21mhz writes: "There is a story on CNET news that provides an analysis of what is happening with
SIP/SIMPLE, AOL protocols and Jabber/XMPP in the IETF. It says that Jabber is close to securing a dedicated IETF working group, in spite of political struggle and corporate maneuvering."
Jabber Central (more pratical information on jabber)
Jabber Powered (an initiative to create products based on Jabber)
Jabber Studio (the development hub of the Jabber community)
Old Jabber documentation
Jabber FAQ
A nice overview of Jabber
Jogger (a jabber based weblog)
Jabber Python module
Unofficial Jabber user guide
Programming Perl(an O'Reilly book)
For those of you who want to try out jabber, psi is a great crossplatform client, with support for windows, linux and mac OSX. I've been using it for some time, and with the msn, icq/aim, etc transports, there isn't really any reason to use anything else.
I really do hope the jabber folks are able to make jabber a standard.
Jabber is, simply put, a universal IM client.
If you use AIM, ICQ, Y!M, or MSN Messenger (or any combination thereof), you can connect to them with Jabber.
It's great if you have, say, family members on AIM, friends on ICQ, and co-workers on MSN.
It also has its own, internal protocol.
However, AIM and Jabber have a history of not working together all that well...so if you have to have AIM connectivity in your IM client, I'd go with Trillian if you use Windows, IMCI for Linux or FreeBSD, or Fire if you use OS X (which doesn't support MSN...but if you're on a Mac, you probably don't need it anyway).
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
Jabber is an open protocol for instant messaging, based on XML. It allows for communication similar to current aim, icq and msn messenger protocols/programs. However, it is able to surpass them based on the openness of the protocol (lots of non-braindead clients for many platforms), features such as ssl encryption on messages (if client and server support it) and through use of transports which allow users of a jabber network to openly interface with clients on other networks (msn messenger, icq, aim, etc).
The ability to log on with only one username/pass and have all contacts on all of your networks be contacted through a consistant interface alone is worth trying jabber out. I recommend psi as a good starting client, however you can find many other clients on jabbercentral .
Jabber, fantastic technology that it is, really should be made standard. For too long, Instant Messaging has been in corporate pockets and completely useless.
The IETF should give Jabber recognition as the industry standard, and then it is up to the other software manufacturers to comply to the Jabber standard or fall behind.
Now, I would never really say this, but... "w00t w00t!". Okay, I'll come quietly...
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Sometimes a little conformity isn't all that bad.
Jabber is not only the product of one company but the collective effort of many Open Source developers and companies: Jabber servers are available for linux and , and windows.
Clients are available for any platform.
You can choose your preferred server or client and they will work with each other!!
I think you're missing the point though. Yes, Jabber is compatible with AIM, ICQ, Y!M and MSN messenger, but the real purpose of jabber is to establish a standard protocol. Jabber hopes to be to instant messaging what POP3 is to email.
My experiences with IETF and it's working groups are not just positive. The organisation seems to be very slow moving, full of politics - and also, full of clever minds. It is ofcourse good to get official recognition and other good things that can come out of it, but one of the obvious minuses I see is: it s ..l ...o ...w .e..s. d...o...w...n . . .t..h..e d..e...v...e..l..o..p...m..e...n.....?
See here. Admittedly a pleasant troll but, a rose by any other name....
Jabber is the protocol. dipshit
Unlike propietary networks like icq or msn, jabber is a distributed network of multiple jabber servers pretty much like email. Users have a profile hosted by a server and are identified as user@jabberhost in a similar way to email. This is both its strength (anyone can set up a server) and its weakness (you need someone to host a server). Endusers without the ability to run servers themselves and without a provider offering a jabber server have to rely on one of the public jabber servers. Unlike with the big messaging networks, however, there are no central servers where you can permanently host your jabber profile. There are plenty of public testing servers but these may go offline at any time.
Because of this, many people download a jabber client, figure out that they need a server and are told by the jabber faq that they might try this or that server without any guarantees that it will still work next week. Not very convincing.
For people to adopt jabber as an alternative to current propietary messaging clients, a reliable, available server that will host profiles for free is needed. As long as servers are lacking, jabber will remain an interesting technology that is mostly used in corporate intranets.
If a good public server was available, I would have been running jabber years ago.
Jilles
why talk to them... just fuck them...
Like Whatever...
I've used Jabber on and off from the beginning and I can safely agree that the user end is a bit rough.
...).
However, here are the reasons you want it:
XML: Now I'm sure by the time this is posted, there will be tons of "XML is the future, adopt it and DESPAIR" posts, but in this case, it is a clear benefit. Bascially, due to XML, the message format allows trivial extension of the protocol. Really, you can just make up an XML element, stick it in the right place and *poof*.
"Is it really this trivial?", you ask. Well, one of my pet projects was writing a Jabber bot for pen/paper RPGs (think Dungeons and Dragons). It took about six hours and I added a element (use the sides property to specify type of dice) that would message you back with a dice roll. I never completely finished the client, but it worked.
Keep in mind all I did to do this was hack two copies of the command-line client--no server changes whatsoever. The key here is that any Jabber server will pass custom XML--so protocol content changes *DO NOT* require server changes and are completely client implementable. Freedom for the masses, anyone?
The possibility of custom clients is huge. Unfortunately, the ability for large companies (AOL, MSFT) to control the state-of-the-art and to make sure that, despite interacting with all IM clients, theirs offers better proprietary functionality on their network (i.e. everyone can message, but AOL partnered with newgame.com so only AOL users can use IM to launch NewGame netgames).
Transparency: This is a big win. It is always possible to pull apart the protocol. Heck, the protocol is designed to be human-readable. This has the added benefit of making obfuscation really obvious (why is AOL using elements named option1, option2, and option3? What is the nsakey element for?
OpenSource: You read Slashdot, you know the pros and cons. The less obvious side of this is how it compares to the corporate offerings--specifically SIP. SIP is great, but try to find a free implementation. If you're using SIP for VoIP (which is pretty much the norm) you probably have had to drop a chunk of change on a nasty Cisco CallManager server.
Loosely Connected: Perhaps the most intelligent Jabber decision was to make it just like e-mail. There's no longer a global hostname, but rather a user@host naming scheme. If you're Internet savvy you can get your e-mail address and jabber address to be the same (exercise left to the reader, think about it).
Existing Gateways: Jabber's weirdest appeal is that it already has gateways to access existing services. The docs have the specifics, but the gateways servers can hit AOL and about everybody else.
Good Standards: Practically all of the corporate offerings are standards that were thrown together (Mirabilis ICQ grew like a Frankenstein's monster, see the procotol specs, they're scary http://www.d.kth.se/~d95-mih/icq/). A ground-up thoughtful implementation like Jabber is a Good Thing(TM) compared to some of the messes.
There are other reasons but I'm tired of typing. You get the idea--Jabber stays crunchy in milk. It's nummy. Get some.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
I was at the Jabber BOF and it was quite interesting.
One thing is that jabber was presented as a solution not for instant messaging (IM) or presence protocol (PP) but as a solution for asynchronous transfer of XML. Another BOF, XML Conf, was suggesting there was a requirement for this sort of stuff to provision routers and such.
Most people seemed to feel that Jabber had major issues from a security and privacy point of view for doing IMPP. Remember that the IETF did look at jabber a few years ago for doing IMPP and it was rejected. Since then, many protocols have been proposed. IM can send message in "page mode" where you are just sending a one time message or it can set up a whole session between the clients for cases where you are going to transfer many message back and forth. This second mode is called session mode. Right now the SIMPLE group more or less has a good proposal for page mode and setting up sessions but is debating how to transfer messages in session mode.
I believe that the following companies have said they will support SIMPLE: Microsoft, Yahoo, Lotus, etc. Unlike what the CNET article said, I was told that AOL filed documents with the FCC saying they would do SIMPLE.
If there is a IETF WG on jabber, which I believe might happen, the interesting thing will be to read what that groups chatter is to do - I bet it won't say that it is gong to developed a complete IMPP solution.
On a side note about how this effects open source development, I work with the vovida.org project which develops voice over IP and messaging open source software. We have talked to the jabber.org and jabber.com multiple times. It's always been difficult to figure out how this all fits together from an open source point of view. You see, jabber.com has patents on stuff you need to implement jabber. At the Jabber BOF at IETF I specifically asked them if they would make this IPR available in a way that worked for open source people. They answered that people had implements this stuff and they weren't suing them. This is like yah, DUH, of course when we are trying to get people addicted to the drug we don't sue them. They have NEVER made any commitment to allow this IPR to be used in open source products. They are a desperate company looking for a way to make a business model out of jabber. If you think jabber is the best for open source - give that some careful thought.
Cullen
Thank you very much! (This thank goes to the other repliers as well:) :-)
Now I can imagine a bit better what this thing is..
thanks again
I would say that JXTA is alos close to securing its own working group fo standards inclusion..
The major difference between Jabber and JXTA is that Jabber runs like a standard IM in that there is a centralized server..
JXTa however does not use any central server.. its straight P2p decentralized..
INfo:
http://www.jabber.org
http://www.jxta.org
Now guess which one is imune from DMCA legal attacks? JXTA! Jabber deployment would stil get your compnay in hot water because they would go after the company that hosts the central server..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
hey, I know this is totally off topic, but I'm trying to host some filespace for a webserver and my university has a block on all request to a server from outside the LAN (despite our having "real" 130 ip addresses this year). If you're on the lan, the server works like it should, but once you're outside, it can't be found. Can anyone give me a few pointers as to how I can circumvent this?
Fire is a decent IM client, but if one is using Mac OS X, I would strongly suggest using Proteus instead (which, for what it's worth, does support MSN).
I also wonder why you say just because somebody uses a Mac they probably don't need MSN. Unfortunately, MSN is used by SO many people these days that, at least for me, it's been practically impossible to know a large group of friends and not have a significant number of them only on MSN.
- j
Maybe that should read "Jabber is, simply put, a universal IM server." The fact that the client implementations are separate from what "legacy" IM services the server can connect to make the protocol that much more appealing.
I have some ideas for an experimental groupware system that I would like to play with. One problem that I was anticipating was to sync-up system users when they are online.
I had thought of requiring people to set up a separate email account (finally, a use for those "get 5 POP accounts" ISPs) that would be used to distribute temporary dial-up IP numbers, etc.
Looking at Jabber, using a few public Japper servers looks like a good alternative for syncing-up users when they come online.
The question: has anyone else used public Jabber servers for something similar? (i.e., use the protocol and free servers for new uses)
-Mark
I sure hope someone is ready with a Jabber plugin for Trillian when version 1.0 comes out. (which will allow plug-ins.....incidentally, their beta version of 1.0 -- which is under tight wraps but it leaked so it's not hard to find -- has a Slashdot plugin, which is kind of cool)
Trillian is in my opinion a much better way to have interoperability with the Yahoo, MSN, ICQ and AOL, than by using Jabber (trillian's interoperability is client side, jabber's is server side). Trillian works great and doesn't add an extra, unnecessary layer to communication with the non-Jabber people.
Still, I'd like to use Jabber as my "main" account on Trillian, if only it supported it. That would be the best of both worlds. Trillian's client is by far the best I have seen.
BTW, I'm told that version 1.0 will also run on linux and OSX.
How stupid. You typed Jabber into Google and copied and pasted most of the first 20 links. In EXACT SAME ORDER too, with the exception of that oreilly link... LOL.
Good damn thing you posted as AC, because if I ever saw your name on a resume I'd put it into the "hopelessly without a clue" pile.
Please close your mouth to breathe.
Correct, however, the current version is described here. And add to this the necessarity to have different versions of the same protocol, you really have a huge mess.
I hate these groups when many people talk their opinions about software. It always end up in slowing down the development. How hard can it be? Just install microsoft messenger and be happy. It has all those features you would need, except those that lame-ass ICQ patented.
The fact that there are so many clients, none of which is polished, is jabber's biggest weakness.
All the jabber clients are shamed by trillian, in my opinion. As I said in another post, someone needs to make a Jabber plugin for Trillian 1.0, I think that would do a lot to get people in the real world using Jabber. (assuming that's what we want....it is, isn't it?)
If you are doing SIP for VoIP, hopefully you are using the open source stuff on vovida.org which has over 100 man years of development in it by engineers who were paid mostly by Cisco. I work for Cisco but I think they have been very good to the open source SIP community.
Correct, however, the current version is described here. And add to this the necessarity to have different versions of the same protocol, you really have a huge mess.
Did I ever mention that SlashCode sucks?
Well, not if you want to keep your current email address and you don't happen to own the domain.
If they had been really smart, they could have figured out a way to have any email address be your Jabber id....all it has to be is unique (which email addresses are). There would have to be some sort of directory system or something. But Jabber people are smart, right? They can figure that out.
The benefits would be immense, in my opinion.
Expecting people to be "internet savvy" to the degree that Jabber folks seem to expect, is a huge weakness for Jabber, IMO.
The fact that there are so many clients, none of which is polished, is jabber's biggest weakness.
Yes, Jabber suffers SourceForge Syndrome but two clients in particular stand out: Gabber and my personal favourite, Psi. Both are highly polished and robust clients. Psi's even multiplatform.
Trillian is a good idea done the wrong way. Why put all that code in one application which needs to be constantly updated as the big two (especially AOL) shift their protocol around and block non-sanctioned servers? It's the wrong approach. The smaller Jabber servers don't get blocked since they're well below AOL's radar and the end user gets a much smaller application with far less code to worry about keeping updated.
Nothing to see on that page you linked, everyone go home.
Well, in part it means programs like Trillian would no longer be needed (sort of) because because any messenger that was compliant with the standard would be able to communicate with any other messenger. The number of messenger clients to choose from would be limitless. People would make as many messengers as people make skins for WinAmp. Some would be really good and popular, others would basically suck. The problem with this will likely be that large companies who hate competition (I wont mention names) will try to squash out the standard by creating their own non-standard standard and then patching their Operating System so the real industry standard is incompatible.
OpenSource: You read Slashdot, you know the pros and cons.
Surely you're not suggesting that there are cons to open source.
(It's a joke. Laugh.)
Here?
Gaim seems to support all the protocols you mention. The user interface could do with a little extra polishing, but it is good fun to be able to use all the protocols at the same time.
I hate to say it, but I don't mind this so much. What happens the first time someone registers billyg@microsoft.com? Can we say lawsuit? I think reinforcing the existing naming scheme resolves a lot of headaches about who "owns" a domain. It could be implemented, but I don't think developing a massive directory and major authentication/verification framework (and associated paperwork) is "the answer".
Any identification system needs to be clear. If your e-mail is bob@asdf.com, you can be sure that if your ISP doesn't support Jabber, at least it won't be anyone else impersonating you. Thus the onus is on the ISP, not the protocol, for problems that might arise. If ISPs are responsible for delivering your e-mail, I don't see it to be a big step for IM traffic (and the routing is a heck of a lot more distributed).
If your ISP doesn't support IMs (a few actually blocked ICQ for a while), I don't see it to be any worse than not supporting e-mail. Both are a service to your customer that require modest (per user) computing and bandwidth requirements.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
I apologize about this. I somehow managed to completely miss this. Where I operate, a few large phone vendors are extremely misinformative about requirements with respect to VoIP.
The vovida.org stuff appears to be good code. My only beef is that vendors threaten me when I try to use stuff like this. We're considering taking a vendor to court right. They won't support their own keyset units because we have an Asterisk PBX between their phone system and the CO.
As you can imagine, I hesitate to do anything but buy a Cisco controller after this nightmare. The legal fees alone make it worth it.
That being said, I hadn't seen this before. Thank you Cisco.
-K
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
That's an important point. There *are* cons to Open Source. However, they typically have nothing to do with Open Source software and have everything to do with corporate politics. Those that do have technical problems tend to not be any worse off that commercial programs in the same state of development.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
Any reasonable directory would verify email addresses.
I have some ideas for an experimental groupware system that I would like to play with. One problem that I was anticipating was to sync-up system users when they are online.
I'm not sure I entirely get your point here -- by "sync-up" do you mean giving late-comers the opportunity to catch up on messages that went before?
If so you might want a back-end designed for such a purpose, something like an asynchronous conferencing system like CoSy. That won't fit the bill as-is, but a while back I did some work on separating out the user and storage interface pieces (some documentation/code on that here. Lately I've been thinking that wrapping it all into a Jabber server (with extensions) makes more sense.
OTOH maybe I missed your point.
-- Alastair
I just re-read my own post and it was unclear.
The system that I have been thinking about is peer-to-peer and aimed at very small working groups so each client could maintain a socket connection with all other clients in the group.
Since many people have temporary IP addresses (e.g., dialup access), there has to be a way to "sync-up", that is, let other people online know your temporary IP address.
On Windows, I have played with groupware products like Groove, but I was thinking of something tailored to very small work groups.
-Mark
microsoft.com's jabber server (as designated by the relevent DNS SVC records) would have to allow them to do that.
Registration @ a particular domain is controlled by the jabber server(s) for that domain. Like email.
Most Jabber servers right now allow open registration, but there's no requirement that they do. And anyway, I don't think microsoft.com is operating a jabber server yet.
DNA just wants to be free...
XML as a wire protocol. Hey, why not just encode each character as a double word, too? We should add some parity bits, though. 24 per double word should do it! While we're here, lets encode that character in 7bit UUEncode, in case it has to pass through any old gateways. That should do it. If we try even harder, maybe we can make a simple "Hi!" message tip the 2Mb mark!
However, AIM and Jabber have a history of not working together all that well...
This may be a good time to point out that this is because aol keeps purposefully banning Jabber servers from accessing AIM.. not because of any deficiency in Jabber.
Yes, actually it does. I'm using it right now. I find, however, that the yahoo service usually flat-out doesn't work.
What happens the first time someone registers billyg@microsoft.com
Well, his signed messages won't match up an he won't be able to decrypt anything from the PGP pubkey, which you *should* be using...
May we never see th
Speaking of which, does Jabber support the use of DNS service records? I thought it just used standard DNS hostnames, which kind of sucks (makes it harder to use @example.com as Jabber address). A quick read through the FAQ on jabber.org makes a few quick mentions of DNS but nothing fancy like SRV records.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
I had some offline conversations with Joe Hildebrand, Tony, and Peter and they have put together some strong statements about IPR that show my previous worries about IPR and jabber are not an issue. Attached below are some very clear statements of their position.I am very happy they are taking this position on patents.
Cullen Jennings
Hi. I am the Vice President of Open Standards & Alliances for Jabber, Inc..
In response to your message below and on behalf of the company, I will state
that Jabber, Inc. neither has, nor claims any patent rights with respect to
the XMPP protocol. Further, Jabber Inc. has no intent to claim any
intellectual property rights with respect to the protocol that would limit
in any way its free and open use. I hope this addresses your concerns. If
you have any additional questions or issues, please feel free to contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Tony
Tony Bamonti
As Executive Director of the Jabber Software Foundation (JSF), I can state
categorically that the JSF does not now hold any patents, that it has not
applied for any patents, and that it never will apply for any patents. The
JSF is a standards organization founded to manage the Jabber protocol. As
soon as our new Board is installed (our annual meeting is being held one
hour from now), we will finalize our IPR policy and include a statement
about the fact that the JSF does not assert any IPR.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre