Re: [SWMP] What is the relationship of SWMP to SIP and/or XMPP?

["Jay C. Weber" <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:

[e-mail]" type="cite">Although SIP (really SIMPLE) and XMPP were designed for "buddy list" like awareness.  They do define a low latency state sharing mechanism with a "buddy list"-specific pub-sub model.  At first blush it would seem sensible to ask whether the transport layers for SIP and/or XMPP are serviceable for SWMP and, if so, focus attention on the virtual world-specific pub-sub model.

Hi John, a very good question.  I argued with myself over using XMPP for some time.  In the end, like most multiuser-3D implementors I believe, I decided that bandwidth efficiency is just too important (much moreso than for chat) to not have a packed binary protocol, especially over the fairly inefficient ascii encoding of XML as required by XMPP.  A similar situation to why, to my knowledge, nobody uses XML encodings to stream audio or video.

That is, I reluctantly turned away from XMPP as an encoding for position-data streams.  As I understand it, XMPP is an application protocol so it doesn't specify transport layers to adopt, except in the sense that people usually carry XMPP over TCP, and SWMP does use TCP as transport (as well as UDP).

I know SIP/SIMPLE less well, but I do understand that SIP is an application protocol and likewise built on top of the standard transports.  Interesting idea though to use SIP to establish the sessions, or similarly, for SWMP to subsume SIP messaging.  I'll definitely look into that.

jay
--
Jay C. Weber
CTO, Media Machines

_______________________________________________
SWMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp