AOL Adopting Jabber (XMPP)

sander writes to tell us that AOL seems to have decided to make their AIM and ICQ services compatible with XMPP. A test server is up at xmpp.oscar.aol.com, and while it's still buggy most major Jabber clients seem to work.

Comments

Well...

[baldass_newbie]

That's one way to release a beta...and about as effective as Google's release process.

GTalk Compatability

[phobos13013]

Well considering AIM has been available through GTalk for at least a month or so, this announcement is really just for advertising right?!

Re:GTalk Compatability

[stu42j]

AIM support in GMail Chat (not the GTalk client) still uses the standard AIM protocol, not XMPP. In order to use it, you must have an AIM account. If AOL eventually fully support XMPP what that will mean is that you can use your XMPP account to chat with AIM users directly without having an AIM account yourself.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[endx7]

No, this is different, since before you could only go through google and it was limited to google. For example, any @jabber.org account should be able to talk to an aim or icq @aol.com account now.

I'm not sure how far the compatibility extends however, since my aim account connected traditionally can't seem to talk to my normal non-aim xmpp account.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[ajs]

And as such, this is a clear admission that Google Talk was putting a serious dent in their business. They had no interest in standards until they had competition, but now that they do, they'll certainly want to make sure that their competition isn't the only one that can claim universal access (which is exactly what Google can claim now for their Web-based client).

Re:GTalk Compatability

[muuh-gnu]

No, this actually _is_ Jabber, while Googles AIM access isnt. Google just provides a client you can use to access AIM, but using AOL's oscar protocol. You cant use Google's AIM access with a client you choose, but here you can. The difference is that with google's approach of jsut implementing the (now old) oscar protocol, you will always have to have an actual AIM account to communicate with other AIM users. With AOL now using jabber, there is hope that they will open their servers for server2server communication, like google has done with their GTalk, so you will be able to contact aim/icq users without having an aim/icq account yourself. Like, you know, you can send email to aol users without having an aol email account yourself. Oh the beauty of open standards. I actually look forward to MSN (and/or yahoo) remaining the only ones in future _not_ using jabber as their backend, sitting in their little proprietary world and being step by step excluded from worldwide IM communication.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[phobos13013]

Well, GTalk or Gmail extension what have you, use the OpenAim standard of course not the original AIM protocol. So my point really is that AOL's progression in this realm at least has been going in this direction. This blog seems to argue against the positive nature of AIM moving to Gmail, but I think the comments point out that long-term it should be positive, especially since one of the suggestions of the article are now implemented! I think bottom line is AOL knew that OSCAR was dead and rather develop from the ground up, they open it up and let the world do it. Another win for OSS!

Re:GTalk Compatability

[Ecks]

It appears that they haven't implemented server-to-server connections yet so that's not the case now. However all they have to do is throw the switch so to speak. It would be a wonderful thing if AIM migrated fully to xmpp.

-- Ecks

Re:GTalk Compatability

[Sancho]

I'd be pretty surprised if Google Talk was putting a dent in their business. It's probably one of the other big-three--Yahoo! Instant Messanger, and MSN Messenger. By moving to XMPP, AOL can effectively increase their userbase to include anyone also using XMPP (since they can now communicate with AOL's subscribers.) It's Yet Another Reason to use AOL instead of Y!IM or MSN.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[Uruz 7]

What business? I don't even see how they make a dime from this service. I've used AIM for years without paying AOL or seeing a single advertisement. I've also never used their client either as many clients are compatible with AIM.

I like XMPP and like the fact that I have my own server so I don't have to be too concerned about privacy issues. According to AOL's TOS, they own all of your IMs and wouldn't be surprised if Google had something similar.

I'd like something that was point to point without a server in the middle. The messages are encrypted so ISPs can't peak in and all logging is left up to the parties involved in the conversation.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[dwex]

Except, well, no.

After more than 2 years, AOL and Google finally implemented the interop that was announced when Google invested $1B in AOL at the end of 2005.

AOL has been working on SIP and XMPP gateways for years; their SIP gateway has been used for enterprise messaging products since like 2004ish.

Most probable explanation for why this is happening now? The very senior executive who most strongly advocated against opening up AIM is finally gone, as of the last round of layoffs at the end of last year.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[Fluffy the attack ki]

Google Talk putting a dent in AIM? Uhh... maybe... but aren't you forgetting about YIM and MSNM? They have been making noise about interoperability for months now and seem to have a much larger user base than Google Talk. This looks more like a "the enemy of my enemy" situation.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[marcansoft]

For S2S to work, they would have to add a SRV record to aol.com so other servers can find the XMPP server responsible for @aol.com addresses (this works just like MX for e-mail, but more general). I doubt they will do that until their server is a little more mature.

Try it:
$ dig SRV _xmpp-server._tcp.aol.com

Re:GTalk Compatability

[Poromenos1]

You might think their world is "little", but in my country (Greece) and I'm sure in most of Europe, everyone uses MSN almost exclusively. Noone has ever heard of AIM/Y, and only old timers remember ICQ. If you want to get a taste of what this news is like for me (apart from the obvious theoretical benefit of using an open protocol), replace the word AOL/AIM with the word MSN, to you it'd be non-news.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[WuphonsReach]

I'd like something that was point to point without a server in the middle. The messages are encrypted so ISPs can't peak in and all logging is left up to the parties involved in the conversation.

Unfortunately, secure key exchange between random parties is a very difficult problem to solve.

However, Jabber/XMPP streams can be encrypted with TLS/SSL, so all of your traffic between you and your server (and between servers) can be encrypted.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[dotancohen]

You suppose that GoogleTalk had put a dent in AOL's business? I doubt that. I have many AIM contacts, and no Gtalk contacts. People are not about to switch protocols (and therefore interoperability with their contacts) so fast. In any case, Jabber already has AIM gateways so GTalk and AIM could communicate without AOL switching protocols.
Side note: I hope that this finally leads to video support in Jabbber.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[FireFury03]

However, Jabber/XMPP streams can be encrypted with TLS/SSL, so all of your traffic between you and your server (and between servers) can be encrypted.

That's not a lot of help if you don't trust all the servers involved. For example, I trust my server because I administer it, but if I'm chatting to a GoogleTalk user then I have to trust Google's server too... Why should I trust their server? For one thing I don't know how trustworthy Google are themselves, and for another I don't know how competent the server admins are - the server could be spyware infested for all I know.

I'd like to see end-to-end encryption over XMPP become a standard thing, but as you mentioned it is a difficult problem.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[petermgreen]

However all they have to do is throw the switch so to speak.
If you are running a pure jabber server using a standard jabber server codebase it is that simple. OTOH if you are running what is probablly just a form of gateway server into your existing closed system then it is going to be much much harder.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[ghfttjj124]

Well, the XMPP community is working on this: https://stpeter.im/?p=2136

Re:GTalk Compatability

[ghfttjj124]

The pressure on MSN will be harder. In that sense it is also news for you as an MSN user. For example, if AOL actually federates AIM and ICQ by becoming part of the XMPP server2server network, then these things might happen: * Gadu-Gadu and Tlen may also adopt XMPP. XMPP already has a considerable stake in Poland. Besides that, ICQ is popular in Poland's neighbour countries and in particular Russia and Germany. Hence, it would be very useful for the Polish business world to use XMPP. If Gadu-Gadu does not switch, these companies will deploy their own server or other services competing with Gadu-Gadu will appear. In the long term Gadu-Gadu and Tlen will be pushed out of the market if they neglect XMPP federation. * In the US, XMPP will become #1. Therefor, the deal between Yahoo and MSN may end; Yahoo may also want to join XMPP. * As the US is China's #1 "customer, QQ the Chinese IM service may also want to federate with XMPP. * When Jingle is more mature in the XMPP community, eBay will see an opportunity in federating Skype with XMPP/Jingle: 3 big countries (US, Germany and Russia) use XMPP. Neglecting this huge potential customers will result in less money for eBay. * Microsoft will probably speed up with SIP/SIMPLE soon. In the countries where they have a huge stake today they will defend their market share more fiercely. * More mobile phone operators will offer XMPP serices. * More ISPs will offer XMPP services.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[FireFury03]

Well, the XMPP community is working on this: https://stpeter.im/?p=2136 [stpeter.im]

Doesn't really help. All that does is guarantees that my server is really talking to google's server and not some third party. If I don't trust Google (i.e. maybe they are logging all the IMs I send through them) or their server has been cracked (it's still presenting me the valid certs, but some malware is grabbing the IMs and sending them to a third party site) then I'm just as screwed.

So if alice@example.com wants to IM bob@gmail.com, Alice might trust Bob but might not trust Eve, who is Gmail's administrator. Eve still gets to see all the data in the clear because she has root access to the server. What is needed is end to end encryption so that the stream is encrypted for the whole time it is in transit between Alice and Bob rather than getting decrypted at every server along the way.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[ajs]

Google Talk putting a dent in AIM? Uhh... maybe... but aren't you forgetting about YIM and MSNM? Me and a lot of other people, yes. At least we try.

They have been making noise about interoperability for months now and seem to have a much larger user base than Google Talk. Y! is unusable. Their spam filtering sucks, and everyone I know abandoned it as their annoyance threshold rose.

MSN is widely used by people who don't know that they're using it. I'm willing to bet that actual traffic volume is higher on Google.

This looks more like a "the enemy of my enemy" situation. Possibly.

Re:GTalk Compatability

[stu42j]

What business? I don't even see how they make a dime from this service.

The only way that AOL makes money from AIM, is when people use the official client (which has ads). My guess is that more people are moving to Pidgin, Meebo, etc in order to chat with friends on other networks. If AOL can get interoperability in the official AIM client by supporting XMPP, they may be able to keep people clicking on ads.

Address format?

[Midnight Thunder]

Does anyone know what address you would use to chat to a friend who has an ICQ or AIM account? 798221@icq.com and bob@aol.com sound reasonable, but anything a bit more concrete would be good.

Re:Address format?

[stu42j]

From the screen shots, it looks like: 798221@aol.com and bob@aol.com

Re:Address format?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.jukie.net/~bart/blog/urxvt-url-yank

Re:Address format?

[Tibor the Hun]

Man, I have to feel sorry for bob@aol.com.
I've been using that account for various spammy registrations since 1998.

3 cheers for Bob!

Re:Address format?

[jandrese]

I really hope nobody actually has the email address foo@bar.com, if so I'm very sorry for getting you on all sorts of spam lists over the years.

Re:Address format?

[swimin]

I believe they haven't actually set up Server-to-Server connections yet, so this won't work yet. You have to use your own aol account to login to their server.

Re:Address format?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I just use root@.com

Let them eat their own dogfood... erm... 'messages they thought I'd be interested in'.

Re:Address format?

[momerath2003]

Use example.com. That way you know you're not hurting anyone!

Re:Address format?

[omninull]

I've always used fake@email.com

Re:Address format?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't have that one, but I did have another one that I had to ditch because so many people kept using when a web form asked for an email address. I won't mention it here, but suffice it to say it was a 2-word swearing phrase using the '@' as the separator and appending '.com'. By the time I deleted it (1999), it was getting ~8000 emails per day. They were almost all from companies that believed they were sending legitimate emails to people who had opted in.

It's too bad...for a few years, I had an email address that I could give people that they didn't have to write down to remember. It was way easier than exchanging a phone number in bars/clubs.

makes sense to me

[orclevegam]

This seems like a reasonable move. It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything. They get more kudos and better interoperability with other networks by switching to a open protocol.

Re:makes sense to me

[steevc]

In a similar vein I hear Yahoo are adopting OpenID. There's hope for the internet yet.

Personally I use Google's chat servers via their client on Windows and Kopete on Linux. I would like to use open protocols exclusively, but I'm stuck with Skype for most of my contacts. They are largely non-technical and need something that Just Works.

Re:makes sense to me

[Isvara]

It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything

Except video.

Re:makes sense to me

[radimvice]

It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything.

You're joking, right? AIM coasted along with a bloated, ad-ridden client (that refused to support basic message logging) for years in spite of much better-developed, more feature-rich software popping up regularly. They were able to hang onto a majority of the instant messaging user base for so long thanks to a combination of their existing majority AOL user base and their (initially closed to competitors) proprietary network protocol. I'd say that sticking with their old protocol got them quite a lot over the years.

Great!

[HerculesMO]

Now can I have my 6 digit UIN back, after you lost my damn account?

Very Newsworthy

[Stubtify]

Well at least for those of us who've been around long enough to remember how badly AOL fought against opening up their services. The cat and mouse games of the early 2000s with a workaround being discovered and AOL closing it are long gone at this point. It is also interesting because the internet is now starting to move into an open direction. I can remember when AOL users and AIM users could not see each other. This was done to entice people to pay for AOL service. Slowly this eroded, and AIM was able to access AOL screennames. AOL always saw its chat base as it's main way to rake people into its service. With the actual AOL business model of old all but effectively dead (I say that, but I know there are millions who still cough up for a service that is free) they had no incentive to keep things closed.

Re:Very Newsworthy

[samkass]

Wasn't AOL/AIM also listed as one of the backers of the OpenID standard as well? So you can log into AIM using an open standard, then converse using an open standard. They now seem to be at least as open as Google about it all.

Yes, the AIM of old was very proprietary, but it seems to be "getting it" these days.

Re:Very Newsworthy

[risk one]

Maybe they should start distributing a rebranded version of Pidgin as their client. Sort of complete the circle.

Re:Very Newsworthy

[mhall119]

Maybe they should start distributing a rebranded version of Pidgin as their client. Sort of complete the circle. They can call it Gaim.

Re:Very Newsworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can remember when AOL users and AIM users could not see each other. This was done to entice people to pay for AOL service" Uh -- this was never the case.

Re:Very Newsworthy

[petermgreen]

They now seem to be at least as open as Google about it all.
IIRC they still don't participate in the gloabl jabber network like google do.

Pidgin?

[Aladrin]

I was trying to get this to work with Pidgin and my AIM account earlier today but never managed to. Has anyone made it work, or would you list the settings for it?

Thanks

Re:Pidgin?

[RedHat Rocky]

I got it working in pidgin, just the usual values you would expect.

It did take a while (minutes) to connect and prompt for password though, I suspect it's being hit pretty hard.

Re:Pidgin?

[RedHat Rocky]

Heh. As an update:

I know it worked at first, as it pulled in my "buddy" list. Unfortunately, since I haven't used ICQ for a while, I had no online contacts to test actual messaging.

After about an hour, the account failed and stayed that way. I expect there is a melted server somewhere....:)

Re:Pidgin?

[Aladrin]

It's never managed to connect for me and usually comes back as a read failure right away, so I figured it must be me. (Despite my private domain Google Talk accounts and all.)

I'll just let this go for now and maybe they'll realize people are interested and get serious about this.

Thanks.

Closed Network no more

[PineHall]

This is big and is part of a trend. Open standards are replacing proprietary protocols. Companies are starting to see the advantage of being open and not closed. I am happy to see this.

Re:Closed Network no more

[Sancho]

There are usually some pretty good advantages to using open standard when creating your product--aside from interoperability (which lots of people think is overrated), you also get to avoid re-inventing the wheel.

Since AOL came up with their instant messaging protocol long before Jabber, it seems like the advantages are much fewer for AOL. In fact, justifying such a move to the board or to the shareholders would probably be more difficult than if they had been able to use open protocols in the first place.

Re:Closed Network no more

[nurb432]

Only in some cases. Not everything will get opened. As long as there is still cash in keeping it closed, expect it to remain that way.

Apparently there isnt enough to be made in the IM arena. the scary part is if they decide to start dropping the services, putting more pressure on the free services and causing them to collpase.

Re:Closed Network no more

[ihatethetv]

While open standards are starting to gain some traction, I don't think they're all-out winning.

Taking a quick look at Apple shows this. They use proprietary batteries, connectors/cables, DRM. Apple's not suffering at all from this...they're raking in extra profit from selling batches of crap. It's their customers who are hurt.

I don't mean to beat up on Apple--I know how protective you /.ers get when people bash them =), they were just the first one off the top of my head.

Other examples include proprietary crap in wireless standards--look at all the "108MBps/Super/XR/whatever" 802.11g add ons...none of them work accross vendors. Same with the pre-N crap.

Flash memory used to be one of the worst examples, with sony MemoryStick and olympus XDC and so forth pushing their stupid formats that have no reason to exist.

It's nice when there's enough competition for open standards to work. I guess the problem comes in when one company can push

Re:Closed Network no more

[KanSer]

Yeah, too bad network operators are going shaped and closed!

People laugh, but we really need to consider protecting the right to an open network constitutionally. It should be a human right, it has ramifications to all aspects of your survival.

but......why?

[blhack]

THis seems like a completely unnecessary move on the part of AOL....there isn't anything WRONG with AIM....so why do they need to change it?

for example..

I've currently got pidgin running and its talking to people over AIM...its talking to people on MSN...and its talking back into my corporate jabber network over the VPN...

With cross network clients like this readily available....moving their network is(was?) a completely unneeded IT expense.

STUPID AOL, STOP CLOGGING MY TUBES!

Re:but......why?

[SCHecklerX]

But just imagine how much better tuned, and how much more quickly interface bugs could be fixed if the pidgin guys could focus on just one protocol vs. a dozen. That's a good thing, IMO, even though I use pidgin for AIM as well.

Then again, everyone could have just stuck with IRC. Oh well.

Re:but......why?

[Archwyrm]

STUPID AOL, STOP CLOGGING MY TUBES! AOL is not meant to be eaten. You may want to consult a physician.

Re:but......why?

[dfn_deux]

A multiprotocol client will always be a kludge, some are slightly more elegant than others, but a kludge none the less.
That said, changing protocols on their end doesn't really buy anything for anyone, unless they also support jabbers network interoperability. I.E. an aim user should be able to message directly to a google chat user without both users requiring an account on the others' service.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

With cross network clients like this readily available....moving their network is(was?) a completely unneeded IT expense.

No, maintaining their proprietary protocol is a completely unneeded IT expense. Now they have the power of the XMPP community behind them.

There is a lot with AIM. File transfers don't work reliably behind firewalls. There's no voice and video support. Its client is archaic. In short, their legacy of being a dial-up information provider instead of an Internet Service Provider was weighing them down.

Re:but......why?

[Locklin]

maybe they don't want to maintain the old protocol forever?

XMPP has well maintained, free, server software, and has the added benefit of things like jingle (voice), and a rather large user base (GTalk & Jabber). Considering all they want is for users to use their services, this should simultaneously lower their overhead and increase the value of their services.

This is yet another positive sign that arbitrary incompatibility is giving way to the (old) concept of open standards for communication on the internet.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Logging into one server to communicate with all of your contacts (which would be possible if they open up S2S), would help *unclog* your tubes. Connecting to one server is less expensive resource-wise than connecting to three.

Re:but......why?

[mhall119]

I've currently got pidgin running and its talking to people over AIM...its talking to people on MSN...and its talking back into my corporate jabber network over the VPN... Yes, but you have to have an account for each and every one of those. You also can't hold a group session between your AIM friends, your MSN friends, and your co-workers, can you?

XMPP would allow you to have a jabber account on your corporate network, and talk to somebody on AIM, ICQ, or another company's japper network, without having to have accounts on those servers. Think of it like email, you have yourname@yourisp.com, and I have myname@myisp.com, but you can send me an email without signing up with myisp.com. Well now we get the same flexibility with IM. The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers.

Re:but......why?

[Ecks]

Maintaining the old protocol costs them users. I want to be on the chat server/protocol with all my friends. If AOL is the biggest then that's where I want to be. I imagine that Google talk/xmpp is growing faster than AOL now so it's a logical move.

Hail to AOL for this move. Hopefully I can turn off my xmpp aol transport in a year or so.

-- Ecks

Re:but......why?

[edwdig]

No, maintaining their proprietary protocol is a completely unneeded IT expense. Now they have the power of the XMPP community behind them.

You're assuming that the XMPP community's desires correspond with AOL's desires. That's a pretty big assumption. Even if they do correspond, AOL is still going to have deadlines on when they need things implemented, which the community isn't going to care about.

And don't forget, AIM is a mature product. It's not like they need to do massive development on it.

There is a lot with AIM. File transfers don't work reliably behind firewalls. There's no voice and video support. Its client is archaic.

I think you're basing your opinion of AIM off the 3rd party clients. It's been years since I used the official client, but, back then if a file transfer failed, it asked if I wanted to do the transfer through their server instead of direct. It even gave a simple, clear explanation of the pros and cons of doing that.

Voice chat has been in there for almost a decade - I remember people in my dorm using it in '99. I vaguely remember GAIM Release Notes talking about not implementing video support, which I took to mean AIM had video support, but it's not something I've ever cared about so I don't know for sure.

In short, their legacy of being a dial-up information provider instead of an Internet Service Provider was weighing them down.

No idea where that is coming from.

Re:but......why?

[rikardos]

The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers. The answer is: SRV record

Re:but......why?

[mhall119]

The answer is: SRV record Yes, I was lazy and didn't look into it before posting, I should have known something like that existed, so that you didn't have to manually configure every server you wanted to communicate with.

Re:but......why?

[premchai21]

There is such a record in the case of Jabber; it uses the SRV record type. For instance:

$ host -t SRV _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com
_xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5269 xmpp-server1.l.google.com
_xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5269 xmpp-server2.l.google.com
_xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5269 xmpp-server3.l.google.com
_xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5269 xmpp-server4.l.google.com
_xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com SRV 5 0 5269 xmpp-server.l.google.com
$ host -t SRV _xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5222 talk2.l.google.com
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5222 talk3.l.google.com
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5222 talk4.l.google.com
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com SRV 5 0 5222 talk.l.google.com
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com SRV 20 0 5222 talk1.l.google.com

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers.

There already is. It's called SRV.

Re:but......why?

[epl]

I guess one could say that is what the XMPP SRV records are for.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone say SRV records? I think SRVs are what you need, but I'm not sure, considering my sibling posts.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers.

It's missing? (check section 5.7 about SRV records)

SRV is like MX but more generic. It allows you to specify the hostname AND port for any service that supports SRV resolution. I'd like to see it replace MX for mail as well, but I suppose that would require rewriting the SMTP standard *sigh*. Anyway, I've had SRV records up for my XMPP server ever since I set it up. Any properly feature complete client and server will support SRV for locating XMPP on a domain.

Re:but......why?

[tapo]

The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers.

They exist.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the way Microsoft has been doing this with SIMPLE between LCS/Communicator and MSN/Yahoo/even AOL for 4 years now?

Re:but......why?

[Isvara]

The only thing I see missing is an MX-like DNS record for IM servers.

That'd be SRV records, which as MX-like records for /anything/ (and which XMPP already uses).

Re:but......why?

[BitZtream]

Because now I can just talk to people on AIM or ICQ via my work jabber account, rather than having to sign up for a AIM account.

XMPP works much like email in that individual companies can all run their own servers and control access to them however they want, but still talk to the rest of the internet with a simple address. The better question is, why doesn't AIM/ICQ just die and everyone move to XMPP which does every single thing AIM/ICQ/MSN does, and more.

They can still make their ad loaded clients if they want.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you've missed the use of SRV records? Just set up two of them to point at your XMPP server:

_xmpp-client._tcp.domain IN SRV 0 0 5222 xmpp.domain
_xmpp-server._tcp.domain IN SRV 0 0 5269 xmpp.domain

Clients will find those records and be able to auto-configure the host and port they need to connect to for that domain. It works well.

Re:but......why?

[lintux]

there isn't anything WRONG with AIM

Read the OSCAR (AIM/ICQ protocol) specs and think again .. this announcement is awesome for anyone who ever wrote an IM client.

Re:but......why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MX-like record exists - XMPP clients (as opposed to legacy Jabber clients) are required to support DNS SRV. This is how "Google Apps for your Domain" IM works, I believe.

AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[ihatethetv]

I was introduced to IM through ICQ back before AIM existed. I remember Aim being ok, but ICQ was much better...well naturally AOL bought mirabilis for 300M-odd dollars way back when and then did the "standard operating procedure" (see the story of Netscape, Nullsoft, et al) of just letting it fester without updates while they pushed their product.

AIM was pretty much the only game in town after that for me...I had my people on AIM, and didn't see any reason to move to yahoo, let alone Msn.

Then everything seemed to stay the same for liek 5 years. The only thing AOL really seemed to be working on was adding loud video ads and fighting against the people who tried to make their crap usable -- like deadaim and it's ilk, gaim, etc.

Over the past seemingly decade, there was talk of cross-network integration...a la msn meets aim, etc. As far as I got was logging into multiple networks in gaim--which is NOT what I was hoping for.

Then google finally put out google talk, a great implementation. Easy enough for my parents to use, no ads....less spyware concern because google doesn't have an evil time warner overlord. And there's a web version of gtalk which beats the PANTs off of the aol crapfest they've called aim express. That's good for those who run different OSes or who don't want to be committed to installing software locally. To their credit aol did put out some token linux release, which i appreciated.

Call me old school but I like the TSR windows client. I don't want my IMs getting lost in browser tabs...I wish they'd port it to linux.

Anyway I read todays news as AOL is losing customers, so they're finally getting their protocol straight and using a standard.

Anyway, Google. PLEASE, please please grab AOl off of time warner...they've been dying to get rid of it, although they're too proud to admit it. Take their user base and merge it with yours. Get rid of their crap....get the media company bias out of their products...I'll take google's signature embedded ads over just about anything that's ever come out of AOL

While you're at it, take nullsoft too...and release all the source code....it might be best to release the code from before the AOL merger, btw.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[dosius]

Hm, Nullsoft... How much of Wasabi Player (aka WinaMP3) is out there, sourcewise?

-uso.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[LWATCDR]

I had ICQ but I never really got into the IM thing. I used and still do use IRC. Now I do use Gtalk but I just wish they had a version for my cell phone :)

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[PCM2]

As far as I got was logging into multiple networks in gaim--which is NOT what I was hoping for.

Why? I mean ... isn't that all you need? Or do people do things with IM that I don't do?

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Sancho]

Well, logging into multiple networks means that you have to keep track of multiple usernames and passwords. You have to remember which network each person is on. Almost everyone has this problem, and it's just a little bit silly for everyone to be using a multi-network chat protocol to talk to everyone else.

AOL probably sees the writing on the wall, and realizes that if they want to keep people using their client (which is, after all, the only way they make money maintaining AIM, anyway) then they need interoperability. Otherwise, people will move on to multi-network clients, to whom AOL can't serve ads.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Sancho]

Since Gtalk uses Jabber, any Jabber client ought to be able to connect to it. Have you searched for Jabber clients for your phone?

Anyway, I'm in the same boat as you, largely. I use IRC because it's simple, and because I can easily run it anywhere that I like. Typically, I run it in a screen on my colo. I've never found a satisfactory IM client that runs in a console, so I've never much been a fan of them.

Jabber, though, looks pretty neat, and since there are plugins for text-mode IRC clients (irssi, specifically) to connect to Jabber, I may give it a real shot, particularly if AOL enables server-to-server communication (as most of the people I'd want to talk to are on AIM.)

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[LWATCDR]

I have and no joy yet.
I really want it so I can message my wife when she is in the computer room at home with out firing up the notebook. It would be a replacement for an intercom.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Sancho]

Depending upon what sort of connectivity you have (and whether or not you can program), it may be possible to code up a gateway. Perl's Net-XMPP2 is really quite spiffy, and writing a bot to relay messages shouldn't be too hard. The key will be in integrating into it whatever connectivity you have with your phone.

Now a full gateway so that you could talk to multiple users and receive messages back might be quite a bit harder, but if it's really just for this one purpose, it shouldn't be.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Quicksilver_Johny]

I think the idea is that is better to communicate with people on a single standard, so you can talk to multiple people (that would otherwise be on different networks), or simply talk about other people using a single identifier that works universally. Also, the need to have multiple accounts can be a little annoying.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[SanityInAnarchy]

Then google finally put out google talk, a great implementation...

...of Jabber (XMPP), which is exactly what AOL is about to do.

Call me old school but I like the TSR windows client. I don't want my IMs getting lost in browser tabs...I wish they'd port it to linux.

gaim supports Jabber. Kopete supports Jabber. There are probably a dozen more that I've never even heard of. And the current implementation of gmail does allow you to "pop out" an IM window. All of these will (theoretically) talk to AOL users now, too. Just what is it that you're missing?

(Or do I not understand what "TSR" stands for?)

Anyway, Google. PLEASE, please please grab AOl off of time warner...

Why?

Honestly, if AOL is dying (as you say), I don't see why anyone should stop them...

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Anonymous Coward]

Then google finally put out google talk, a great implementation...

...of Jabber (XMPP), which is exactly what AOL is about to do.

He was probably referring to the client that Google released, not the server. Yes, the server is just another XMPP server, but the client is clean and simple compared to the ones available for AIM/MSN and the other competitors. The fact that it's XMPP under the covers makes it easier for power users to use alternative clients, but having the simple client for mom and dad is important too.

(Or do I not understand what "TSR" stands for?)

Yes, you don't understand what TSR stands for.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[BitZtream]

the google web client works on my iPhone ;)

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yes, you don't understand what TSR stands for.

If that's what was meant, it's not accurate. The T in that TSR stands for "Terminate", which GTalk doesn't. (Or, when it does, it is no longer "Staying Resident".)

Thus my confusion, when Googling for that term...

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[lintux]

I use IRC because it's simple, and because I can easily run it anywhere that I like. Typically, I run it in a screen on my colo. I've never found a satisfactory IM client that runs in a console, so I've never much been a fan of them.

I don't usually plug my own product, but maybe BitlBee is what you're looking for. At least it has exactly the UI you need. :-)

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[petermgreen]

Why? I mean ... isn't that all you need? Or do people do things with IM that I don't do?
It works kind of but it still has major issues:

* groupchats are only possible if all buddies are on the same network
* features beyond basic IM are rarely supported well if at all
* you have to manage multiple identities. Rather than one line of IM address contact information you end up with 5 or so.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Jonner]

Terminate and Stay Resident programs were ones that implemented device drivers, daemons, and other task-switching in the bad old days of 16-bit DOS. I don't think they've been either possible or useful on any 32-bit memory-protected OS. However, from a user interface standpoint, many modern programs that hide themselves until needed (usually leaving just an icon in the system tray) are quite similar to the TSRs that would pop up when one hit the right key combination.

Re:AOL's passive aggressive attention to IM

[Sancho]

Looks pretty neat! I'll check it out.

Pundits, please speak up

[bogaboga]

With this news, I am more interested in what the pundits say about this development. What does this really mean for the little Joe User?

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[SanityInAnarchy]

It means that theverylastaoluser@aol.com (seriously, who uses it anymore?) can now IM to smartpeople@gmail.com, and vice versa.

A longer explanation: IM has, historically, been a walled garden. That is, if you have MSN Messenger (or "Windows Messenger"), I need to have MSN Messenger in order to IM you. If I have Yahoo Messenger, we can't communicate.

There are ways around this, none of them very good. You could just install Yahoo Messenger also, and AIM, and that will cover almost everyone. (Almost -- there's still Gadu-Gadu, WinPopup, Groupwise, ICQ, IRC...)

IRC is a bit better, actually, because at least there's a standard protocol. Anyone can setup an IRC server, or write their own IRC client. If you're on Windows, you can just download mIRC and connect to anyone. (I like irssi on Linux and MacIRSSI on OS X.) But it's still a walled garden, in that you can't connect to EFnet and talk to people -- in rooms or in private messages -- who are on DALnet. (Or Freenode, or...)

But not everything is a walled garden. Email, for instance -- anyone can register a domain, setup a mailserver, and provide email for themselves, for friends, or for money. If you're a poor sap who has an @aol.com email address, I don't have to do anything special to be able to send mail to you from my @gmail.com address, or from my own domain.

All it takes for email to work is a domain name and a mailserver. And a mailserver can be any computer that's online all the time. Not that I recommend doing it yourself, just saying that email is wholly and completely democratized.

Well, that's what Jabber/XMPP is all about. Not only is the chat/IM protocol open, but Jabber servers can be configured to talk to other Jabber servers -- to arbitrarily connect to each other. So you can be on AOL Instant Messenger, and I can be on Google Talk, but we can add each other to our buddy lists and communicate. Not because there's any kind of big deal with AOL and Google, but because they both speak Jabber. And like email, I can setup my own Jabber server.

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[petermgreen]

It means that theverylastaoluser@aol.com (seriously, who uses it anymore?) can now IM to smartpeople@gmail.com, and vice versa.
My understanding is you can't do that yet. Implementing XMPP as a client protocol is pretty seperate from implementing XMPP "federation".

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[Jonner]

Yes, those are different functions. The AOL xmpp server is still experimental, and there's no reason to think they won't federate eventually. If they didn't the whole exercise would be pretty pointless anyway.

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[petermgreen]

there's no reason to think they won't federate eventually.
Depends, companies whose main buisness model is dying tend to be a little unpredicatable, one step towards openness won't nessacerally be followed by others.

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[Jonner]

OK, let me restate it: If AOL wants to serve their customers and remain relevant in the long term, they'll federate.

Re:Pundits, please speak up

[gadders]

Has anyone got any decent how-tos on how to setup a Jabber server, preferably with a web-based front end? I'd like to put one on my home PC so I can bypass the people that have blocked IM here.

Thanks.

What about me?

[Anonymous Coward]

me@me.com that is. That's my generic email. On systems that'll take it, though, I try to use me@example.com since that's reserved.

It's about time

[Quiet_Desperation]

AOL *users* have been jabbering for years now.

great news

[hey]

This is great news. Hopefully it will shame the others to switch to XMPP. Yes, I mean you MSN.

Re:great news

[JordanL]

If AOL moving to XMPP is hell freezing over... MSN moving to XMPP would be putting hell in an Einstein-Boseman state.

I other words, not bloody likely.

Re:great news

[Abreu]

Which is sad, really... for some strange combination of events, everyone in Mexico uses MSN (it had to do with Telmex pushing MSN through its Prodigy ISP, which is a near-monopoly).

I really wish I was not forced to use the MSN network (or its client at work)

Client only, or S2S as well?

[TFoo]

the real question is -- are they going to support XMPP S2S (server to server federation)? Currently it looks like port xmpp.oscar.aol.com:5269 is NOT accepting connections (that's the XMPP S2S port).

Without S2S, this announcement is pretty much useless -- I mean, sure I can use my jabber client against AOL instead of the AOL-branded one, but I pretty much can do that already via the reverse-engineered joscar libraries (e.g. libgaim)

Re:Client only, or S2S as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

in fact they could have the s2s server on another host/port, the correct way to know it is to look at the SRV record of _xmpp-server._tcp.aol.com which is non-existant at this time

Re:Client only, or S2S as well?

[koko775]

Perhaps as a part of their rollout they eventually plan on turning on S2S. If I recall, wasn't gTalk closed for a few months until they opened S2S?

Re:Client only, or S2S as well?

[rabbit994]

Yes, GTalk was closed for a few months and then they opened it up for S2S. In Fact, I talk to all my friends on GTALK via S2S from personal XMPP (Jabber) server.

They are not even publishing the correct DNS SRV records yet for AOL.

> _jabber._tcp.aol.com

*** dnsserver can't find _jabber._tcp.aol.com: Non-existent domain
> _xmpp-client._tcp.aol.com

*** dnsserver can't find _xmpp-client._tcp.aol.com: Non-existent domain
> _xmpp-server._tcp.aol.com

*** dnsserver can't find _xmpp-server._tcp.aol.com: Non-existent domain

Huzzah

[Realistic_Dragon]

Finally I will only need to be connected to one IM network. _My own_. Up to now you had to pretty much put up with either MSN logging your conversations or AOL logging them.

One of the great things about Google turning on server 2 server for GTalk is that it is now possible to run your own IM server (as you might run your own mail server) and network interconnection just works. If AOL go the same way a critical mass might build up enough that central control of IM becomes almost impossible - as all the geeks can set up their own independent servers that serve to keep them in touch with the masses as well as (securely) in touch with each other.

Re:Huzzah

[Kadin2048]

Finally I will only need to be connected to one IM network. _My own_. Up to now you had to pretty much put up with either MSN logging your conversations or AOL logging them.

One of the great things about Google turning on server 2 server for GTalk is that it is now possible to run your own IM server (as you might run your own mail server) and network interconnection just works.

And then you still have AOL, MSN, or Google logging your chats, if you're talking to someone on one of their networks. If you're the only person using your chat server, it's really like just using a very complicated client program.

E.g., if you're "joe@homenetwork.net" and you run a XMPP server at messaging.homenetwork.net, but all the people you talk to are on Google or AOL, every message you send goes from your client, through messaging.homenetwork.net, and then over to Google's or AOL's servers (where presumably they log them), before going to the destination.

Unless you can convince your friends to use your chat server (messaging.homenetwork.net) rather than AOL's/Google's, you're not getting any additional privacy.

Frankly, I think privacy isn't really the goal we should be aiming for with this. If you want privacy, get OTR encryption (the easiest way is just to use Adium on the Mac), and then it doesn't matter quite so much whose servers the messages are passing through. The switch from OSCAR to XMPP is all about interoperability.

Re:Huzzah

[BrentH]

How is putting your own server between the 3rd party server (Google or some other) and your client helping me? What is more secure when I do that? I really can't see the benefits, only perhaps if you have a LAN with many people.

Re:Huzzah

[gmack]

But it's really easy to gain that extra privacy.

More networks on XMPP makes having your own server much more useful since you can talk to the other networks. I have messaging.mynet and you have messaging.yournet and we can both talk to Google users and AIM users to the whole exercise is not a waste of time.

My jabber server was pretty much dead except for some danish isp tech (NGDC) until google moved over. Now I can actually use it to talk to real people. I'm thinking this move will encourage more people to have their own servers.

Re:Huzzah

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And then you still have AOL, MSN, or Google logging your chats, if you're talking to someone on one of their networks.

Not always. You see the only time I really care if my IMs are logged or harvested is when I'm exchanging messages with coworkers. Since work has their own Jabber server up already, this means when I chat at work I don't have to use a different account to talk to friends using AIM or some other protocol. This means I can ditch Adium since I no longer need the cross protocol pieces and just use iChat, which has Jabber support and video and voice chat support working beautifully.

Unless you can convince your friends to use your chat server (messaging.homenetwork.net) rather than AOL's/Google's, you're not getting any additional privacy.

This isn't quite true. They don't have to use my server, just so long as they're using any server that doesn't do logging (like their own server or their work server or a server hosted by someone they trust).

If you want privacy, get OTR encryption (the easiest way is just to use Adium on the Mac)

I do enjoy OTR and using a proxy to get it working with iChat was annoying. The problem is, that only helps if the person on the other end is using it, which frankly is pretty rare, except for my coworkers anyway.

Re:Huzzah

[Anonymous Coward]

This is false. Your presence information goes to the servers, but the actual messages are client-to-client. (In full jabber environments, if you're gating to msn or other non-jabber services, then yes, the gateway can listen).

AOL will make extra money selling statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Google makes good money from selling statistics on the words used in e-mails and IM. So far AOL hasn't been able to do the same because their protocols did not allow them to monitor IM conversations. But if the AOL users switch from the old ICQ protocol to jabber then AOL will get some valuable data that they can sell.

Re:AOL will make extra money selling statistics

[lintux]

Google makes good money from selling statistics on the words used in e-mails and IM.

That's interesting. How do you know that?

file transfers and direct connect

[ihatethetv]

Another question is will file transfers finally work? What about direct connection (for pictures, etc)? It's been on-again-off-again for years...even with the real aol client. don't get me started on how spotty/non-existent this functionality has been on gaim, etc.

Re:file transfers and direct connect

[rabbit994]

XMPP has a facility to pipe file transfers through the server. They do it similar to MIME where they encode it, break into small messages and send it down the pipe. It's slower but it works through most firewalls and NATs. You can also do direct P2P with fallback to server if there is a problem.

Re:file transfers and direct connect

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Another question is will file transfers finally work?

Do you mean, will file transfers over Jabber work? Yes. My girlfriend sent me file to proof for her yesterday via Jabber. (As an aside, it is awfully nice to have xmmp and zeroconf auto-discovering people on the LAN and allowing us to chat and transfer files. Sure, I have a file server, but it is a lot easier to tell her to drop the file into our chat session than is is to explain how to find the file share.)

Cool

[jeremie]

Finally! :)

Universal SPIM for everyone!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

It's great that AOL is finally going to speak the industry-standard XMPP. Now instant messaging will be as universal as email is today. And you know what that means...

If you have a Jabber account anywhere, be prepared to start receiving lots of spim all day, every day. And don't simply think that you'll get away with not allowing buddies on your list without accepting an invitation. Spimmers don't do business that way. They simply put their advertisement in the invitation so you've already read it by the time you decline the invite.

Viagra ads, mortgage scams, pump and dump stocks ... all day, every day, but now it pops up right into the middle of your screen. Happy Happy!!

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the only reason we're not seeing more IM spam right now is that AOL is not using the right protocol? Spammers are waiting for jabber instead of using the reverse-engineered proprietary protocols?

Yeah, right. That one doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[MobyDisk]

I think this is a non-issue because invites just aren't used any more. I'm not even certain that the modern clients support them.

Instead, you email a friend with your IM contact info: they add you, you add them, and now you can both IM each other. No invites required, no spim. I've been using IM for 5+ years and I've never received a single spam of any kind. And I've never used invites, or received one.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[flyingfsck]

So Iggy, does Citadel have a solution for Spim?

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

So the only reason we're not seeing more IM spam right now is that AOL is not using the right protocol? Spammers are waiting for jabber instead of using the reverse-engineered proprietary protocols?

They're adding XMPP to both AIM and ICQ. ICQ is huge for spim. And now you'll get it even if you don't use ICQ.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

So Iggy, does Citadel have a solution for Spim?

Since we handle email and IM within the same server framework, it shouldn't be too difficult to route IM's coming from a remote network through the existing spam filters.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[SanityInAnarchy]

They will have to be realtime now, though.

That is -- I use a statistical filter, and I don't much care how long it takes to run, as emails are intermittent, and don't have to be delivered instantly. It's still pretty damned fast, especially for small messages...

But consider things like SPF, greylisting, and all kinds of other tricks people use for mail filtering. There are a LOT of email spam filters out there right now which simply could not work well on Jabber.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[nexex]

Log into an ICQ account and you'll get all kinds of Russian stuff.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[ChrisXS]

Popup in the middle of the screen? What kind of archaic client do you use? An unobtrusive balloon tip in my KDE system tray with an option to ignore is all I get using Kopete.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[WK2]

Yes, spim is a problem, just like spam. Fortunately, just like spam, there are solutions for bringing it down to a workable level, and as it gets more prevalent, there will be better solutions that are easier to use and bring it down further. Of course, also like email, we will be losing legitimate messages that our spam filters wrongly flagged/deleted.

I still say open protocols are progress.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[FireFury03]

If you have a Jabber account anywhere, be prepared to start receiving lots of spim all day, every day.

Whilst this is true, XMPP does callback verification which means that the spammers can't spoof their domains. I suspect the lack of spoofability will mean that spam will never get anywhere near as significant as email spam. For one thing, it means you can't have a botnet of machines running XMPP servers because they would each need a DNS record and the ability to accept the callbacks.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[Ash-Fox]

Log into an ICQ account and you'll get all kinds of Russian stuff.

I believe the reason why it's possible on ICQ, is due to the fact every account is 100% guessable (every account is just a incremented number).

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[Ash-Fox]

ICQ is huge for spim.

Because every account is guessable (incrementing numbers).

And now you'll get it even if you don't use ICQ.

I don't see how. By the way, AIM and ICQ have been connected for ages, AIM users don't appear to be receiving ICQ spam.

Re:Universal SPIM for everyone!

[MobyDisk]

I have an ICQ account. I've never received spam on it. I have it set to accept IM's only from people on my contact list, so maybe they are coming-in, but I can't see them. That seems like a sane policy. And I don't get any invite-spam either, because I don't think invites work at all.

It sounds like you are using a really crappy ICQ client if it allows random people to send you IM's.

Old TopCoder Project

[cparker15]

This is most likely the result of the AOL XMPP Gateway project posted in 2006 at TopCoder: http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=dev&d2=assembly&d3=det_aolXmppGateway

Opening up to fend of the competition

[linuxci]

I believe AIM is still the most popular in the US, in the UK it was never really that popular compared to ICQ at the beginning and then very quickly MSN took over the top slot. Unless AIM had some advantage over MSN then I'm sure they're slowly losing ground in the US too. So what better way to remain relevant than to switch to an open protocol. It suddenly makes AIM accessible to a larger number of users without the need to register a separate account.

I know at the moment the AIM jabber server does not support server to server federation, but neither did google until they'd gone through initial testing, hopefully AIM will see sense and turn this on, even if they don't it makes it easier for the developers of Pidgin, Trillian, etc.

Re:Opening up to fend of the competition

[Ash-Fox]

in the UK it was never really that popular compared to ICQ at the beginning and then very quickly MSN took over the top slot.

I find Yahoo is really popular in the UK (I have got more UK contacts on Yahoo than MSN). I think the reasoning behind this is that BT is installing it with their ISP setup CDs and requiring you create yahoo accounts to get your BT e-mail etc.

There is no escape...

[stream0]

Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated.

They may be hedging their bets

[kiwimate]

I can't verify this, but from comment 28 on the blog:

IdahoPotato Said,
Before you declare Mission Accomplished! - there seems to be a sip.oscar.aol.com, and my SIP client can connect there as well.

Re:They may be hedging their bets

[Daengbo]

SIP is pretty much a VOIP thing (though I guess it can be used for text chat), so I don't see how this conflicts with Jabber (except through Jingle, but they're not exactly the same thing). I doesn't look like "hedging their bets" -- more like they're planning on doing more VOIP in the future.

If the walls of IM fall, Skype will be next.

Re:They may be hedging their bets

[FireFury03]

SIP is pretty much a VOIP thing

SIP is "Session Initiation Protocol" - it negotiates sessions of other protocols between endpoints. So for example, it is often used to initiate RTP sessions (VoIP). However, it can also be used to pass other data such as instant messages - in fact there is a chopped down version of the SIP protocol that just does IM (known as SIP/SIMPLE), which Microsoft (amoungst others) have used for their corporate IM server products for some time.

except through Jingle, but they're not exactly the same thing

When I read the Jingle specs it very much appeared to me to be almost SIP-over-XMPP. I.e. it does the same job as SIP - setting up RTP sessions between endpoints. ISTR when they came up with Jingle, Google said they would also be providing a SIP gateway eventually (anyone know if this actually happened?)

If the walls of IM fall, Skype will be next.

I won't hold my breath - Skype have a lot to gain by remaining non-interoperable. Not least the fact that it prevents people from shopping around for cheaper VoIP/PSTN gateways (of which there are hundreds in the SIP world).

Re:They may be hedging their bets

[Daengbo]

Like I said, it can be used for text chat, but its main purpose is VOIP. To me, this implies that AOL may just be trying to get into Internet telephoy as well. Their rep has said that they are testing several things.
From SIPs RFC3261:

This document describes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), an application-layer control (signaling) protocol for creating, modifying, and terminating sessions with one or more participants. These sessions include Internet telephone calls, multimedia distribution, and multimedia conferences.

Whereas Jabber's RFC3920 states:

While XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for exchanging XML data, it is used mainly for the purpose of building instant messaging and presence applications that meet the requirements of RFC 2779.

and RFC3921 says:

This memo describes extensions to and applications of the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) that provide the basic instant messaging (IM) and presence functionality defined in RFC 2779.

I stand by my statement that this doesn't really look like "hedging bets."

Single address

[chihowa]

Why? I mean ... isn't that all you need? Or do people do things with IM that I don't do?

I'm not really into IM, but I imagine he's looking for the ability to have one address that anyone can IM him at, instead of needing an AIM address, an MSN address, a GTalk address, an ICQ address, and so on. That way anyone, on any IM network, can reach any other person. By using one protocol, XMPP in this case, all of the networks can be merged into one.

Aol isnt hip for kids

[sjwest]

Meebo and other clone jabber websites do it for them now.

Group chat...

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's possible to pull people into a chatroom. On MSN, this is spontaneous and invite-only. On Yahoo, for awhile, there were IRC-like rooms -- they probably still exist, but Yahoo doesn't talk about them anymore. I'm fairly sure Jabber supports this functionality, too.

The trouble is, you can't have anything like a "room" which includes people from different networks. I believe this means that GTalk people will be able to join AOL chatrooms and vice versa.

How?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I thought Jabber traversed NAT...

Re:How?

[FireFury03]

I thought Jabber traversed NAT...

XMPP is very similar to SIP in that low bandwidth data (e.g. your IMs) all go via the servers. It is only high bandwidth or latency-sensitive data (file transfers, VoIP (using Jingle), etc.) which set up a peer-to-peer session. In general, technologies which try to traverse NAT are unreliable, so it is avoided unless there is a substantial gain from doing so (and this is a major reason why we need IPv6 so we can ditch the mess that is NAT).

Re:How?

[SanityInAnarchy]

In general, technologies which try to traverse NAT are unreliable

I should've been clearer -- I thought it traversed NAT by going through the servers, at least for the IMs. I'd be more concerned about IMs being intercepted/monitored/etc, because those are searchable.

Comment from AOL

[HyperQuantum]

AOL commented on the blog article:

Hey Flo,

Thanks for blogging about our commitment to openness. We've been working really hard over the past few years in making all of our services more open and standards based, working with the SIP as well as the Jabber/XMPP communities. Our XMPP gateway at xmpp.oscar.aol.com, which we've been working on for a while now, is just one approach we're tinkering with. As you pointed out, though, this particular server at xmpp.oscar.aol.com is a test server, so I wouldn't count on it being reliable or even continuously available until we put some more work into it to bring it up to our standards.

In the meantime, keep your eyes open for more announcements from us soon. We're excited by the work we're doing and the support we've received from the broader internet community and hope you'll be just as excited by what we've got to offer.

-Edwin Aoki
-Technology Fellow/Lead Architect, AOL Products

XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[bconway]

I've been using AIM since 1997 and GTalk on and off for a year, both with Pidgin 2.3.1 currently.

As far as comparisons go, with AIM I can:
- See and show other's and my own idle time (critical to me)
- See other's and set my buddy profile (very useful for links and other interesting tidbits)
- See people's login time (important)
- See people's account creation time
- See the capabilities of someone's client

With XMPP I can:
- Do none of the above
- Have a slightly larger buddy icon

Am I missing something? Are these lackings limitations of Pidgin? Given XMPP's open nature, I would have imagined missing features would have been implemented long before reverse-engineering AIM's newest protocol features. :confused:

Re:XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[infiniti99]

The features you see in XMPP are largely based on what client you use. It could be that Pidgin simply hasn't implemented all the features you want. In that case, file a report. :)

That said:
- See and show other's and my own idle time: there is no protocol for this as far as I know. People on XMPP seem to be content with auto-away messages.
- See other's and set my buddy profile: you can set a status message even when non-away, people often use this for sharing current information. Otherwise, there's the VCard information which can include a description (long-lived profile, exists even if you sign out).
- See people's login time: this works, the client just needs to show it.
- See people's account creation time: there is no protocol for this as far as I know.
- See the capabilities of someone's client: clients often don't directly show you this information, but instead features are simply enabled or disabled in menus and things depending on if you can do it. This is more of a UI concern, capability information is indeed exchanged over XMPP.

Re:XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[BitZtream]

So what your complaining about is that AIM displays far too much information that the user may not want you to see, where as google is more conservative and doesn't send that information to clients on their server. I use Pidgen with our companies OpenFire server, most of that information is already available to me by looking up the users info. I may not be able to see the account creation time, but to be honest theres no point, I'd love to hear why you must see someones account creation time. Do you chat with random people and need to figure out if it some 40 year old man trying to sex you up by looking to see if HotLolita919 is an account created in the past 20 seconds?

Re:XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[earlymon]

With iChat AV, I can see idle time (very important, let's me know co-worker is away from console) and client abilities (let's me know if audio or video is supported).

We all agree to change status when idle - but sometimes lack time or are too lazy.

(Oddly, I can see on-line status with the Jabber side of iChat AV for one gtalk guy, but not at all for another guy. I'd either blame Google or iChat for that before XMPP.)

With Jabber, you can also:

- Reach more people, because some people don't like the AIM or iChat Kool Aide even if we do :)

Re:XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[FireFury03]

(Oddly, I can see on-line status with the Jabber side of iChat AV for one gtalk guy, but not at all for another guy. I'd either blame Google or iChat for that before XMPP.)

Sounds like you aren't subscribed to that buddy. When you add a buddy to your roster it will send a subscription request to them. They can either accept the request (and you'll then get status updates from them) or they can decline it (they are still on your roster but it won't give you their status).

In Pidgin you can re-send the subscription request by right clicking the buddy, but if they don't want you to see their status they can just decline it again. :)

Re:XMPP's features, what am I missing?

[earlymon]

Party on the other end isn't savvy enough to follow that. When I used the Gtalk web interface or the Gtalk desktop tool, I see their status just fine, hence my conclusion.

But it's worth a shot - I'll try to get them to try it again. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rediff's Bol

[Russ Nelson]

Rediff has been experimenting with a gateway between XMPP and their Bol chat server (Bol means "Talk" in Hindi, so it's a Chat chat server, but then again I once lived in Villa Chateau Apartments). I have no idea if it's publicly available, though. If anybody cares, drop me an email.

What about Jingle?

[earlymon]

I like chatting with AIM users via iChat using voice. If AIM were to go XMPP, I'd think they'd need to support voice to keep their users happy. Google talk's jingle evidently isn't the same as that published by XMPP - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)

So, before I start cheering, I'd like to know if supporting voice for AIM/XMPP will follow the standard or follow Gtalk or what?

Notice how hard they've made it so far - or whatever the correct conclusion is... http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html

Re:What about Jingle?

[BitZtream]

From the web page:

Jingle is an extension to the Jabber/XMPP protocol, to allow for peer-to-peer (p2p) signalling for multimedia interactions such as voice or video. It was designed by Google and the XMPP Standards Foundation. The multimedia content itself can be delivered using the Real-time Transport Protocol, with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) for NAT traversal. As of January 26 2007, the Jingle standards are marked as being experimental, meaning that it has not yet been approved by the XMPP Standards Foundation.

... what that means is ... it is the standard for voice of XMPP is just not 100% locked in stone yet.

Re:What about Jingle?

[earlymon]

Many thanks!

So, would I be inferring too much to think that whatever Jingle becomes may well be what Google will ultimately do? I'm guessing that they want traffic, and are supporting Jabber for chat as standards-based, so they'd expect more mindshare supporting the full standard when it is locked in stone.

It's not just mental meandering. I have too many chat clients that go so far, and I'm getting ready to cull the herd. OK, maybe it is mental meandering.

Again, your insight, much appreciated.

Re:What about Jingle?

[wertigon]

Google has said that once the standard is more stable, they'll fix their implementation to match. Whether they'll keep to that promise or not remains to be seen. Incidentally, Jingle is slated to go draft (e.g. "release") this month. Once it has gone draft, it's generally considered stable enough to implement. So, that's more or less what the whole Jabber community is hoping for. :)

Re:Closed Network no more but need interconnection

[neutrino38]

Adopting an open documented protocol is one thing but the next step is to make sure all four major IM networks, namely MSN, GoogleTalk, AOL but also Skype get interconnected.

This would mean that all users of those network could chat and exchange presence information seamlessy and regardless of the network they belong. Unfortunaltly this dream vision hurts the business model of those networks as they are largely based on audience and funding by ads. So the only sensible solution would be that this seamless service could be reserved for premium paying accounts.

I am not sure about user acceptance of the above provided that many people consider that IM service is free, regardless of the number of server and bandwidth used to provide the service.

Encryption (Was: Re:GTalk Compatability)

[caitriona81]

OpenPGP and OTR encryption are offered in many clients, and only have to be supported on the client. Clients supporting OpenPGP can also used signed presence. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0027.html, although historical, is used by a few of the more popular clients, although, certainly not universally. OTR also has a strong following - I'm not sure if it's as broad as OpenPGP support. Finally, S/MIME support over XMPP apparently exists in RFC form, but I'm not aware of any widespread implementation.

This is in addition to TLS/SSL being used whenever available between client-server and server-server (which, still lets the server inspect messages, but at least protects from casual eavesdropping on the wire).

The problem really remains getting people to use encryption properly on their clients, and as email has shown, despite OpenPGP and S/MIME being available for more than a decade, they aren't widely used outside certain communities, because the average end user values convenience above security.

Re:MX records

[Anonymous Coward]

XMPP obeys SRV records which are much more flexible than MX so there is no issue. It works smoothly and more naturally than the abomination called SIMPLE that tries to transport XML presence and messaging over SIP.

DNS record

[neutrino38]

I guess that SRV record would make the trick.

Re:DNS record

[mhall119]

I guess that SRV record would make the trick. Yeah, I'm beginning to think it would. But maybe the next 20 comments will confirm it.