Re: Why Jami?

[Greg Troxel]

Dmitry Alexandrov <address@hidden> writes:

>> Server-based SIP is still fully supported.
>
> Unfortunately, itʼs not easy to find not even a good manual, but just
> a brief overview of it: what exactly ‘fully supported’ means.
>
> Itʼs pretty reasonable for an end user to expect a full-blown SIP
> client to contain certain features, which are technically not parts of
> the SIP proper: such as end-to-end encryption of media stream, which
> means support of ZRTP.

Good points.  I find that the SIP app landscape is somewhat troubled,
and if jami the app really did support SIP that would be great.

> But Jami does not support ZRTP, does it?

ZRTP is of course very important.  I would expect the encryption in the
jami protocol to be more or less ZRTP with authentication based on jami
addresses.


Another thing is that it at least earlier did not seem possible to start
up jami and use it without creating a jami address, and just do SIP.  It
seems obvious that this should be possible if it "supports SIP".  I
realize there is no great cost to creating an account, but someone might
not want it to be registered (either DHT or proxy) and there is
cognitive load in doing unwanted things.