Re: a SIP or XMPP service for debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 22/12/13 13:25, Philip Hands wrote:
> Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> writes:
>
>> On 22/12/13 10:52, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 10:44:08 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've started a wiki on this topic, it provides a detailed
>>>> plan from start to finish:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.debian.org/UnifiedCommunications/DebianDevelopers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
As one of the leading free software projects and given Debian's
>>>> particularly outspoken attitude that we do not rely on third
>>>> party "free" services there are compelling reasons to try and
>>>> finally implement this entirely using our own packages and
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> * do people generally agree with it?
>>>>
>>>> * would the DSA team be willing to provide and support the
>>>> underlying infrastructure for this or have it on any existing
>>>> servers?
>>>
>>>
>>> zobel@kvasir ~ % ldapsearch -LLL -x -H ldap://db.debian.org -b
>>> ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org '(host=cilea)' purpose dn:
>>> host=cilea,ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org purpose:
>>> voip.debian.{net,org}
>>>
>>> zobel@kvasir ~ %
>>>
>>>
>>> For more details, please contact Phil Hands.
>>
>> I've had some ongoing discussions with Phil but ultimately, like
>> SMTP for debian.org, these things would need to be formally
>> accepted by DSA at some point.
>
> I think I've become something of a blocker on this I'm afraid, as
> I decided to settle on Freeswitch, which is a fine bit of software
> in many ways, but is also pretty close to unpackagable for Debian
> because of their tendency to shovel any library they notice into
> their code tree.
>
> That being the case, I've repeatedly beaten my head against the
> brick wall of Freeswitch packaging, rather than getting something
> deployed that people can use -- sorry about that -- it seemed like
> a good idea at the time.
It is a good idea: it does have benefits and competition from
FreeSWITCH is good for Asterisk.
> That being the case, taking a different tack, and deploying a more
> federated setup, as Daniel suggests, seems very worthwhile, and
> means that the users would be isolated from whatever PBX we end up
> using, which would make it easier to chop and change between
> Asterix, Freeswitch, or whatever for bridging via SIP providers to
> the POTS.
The SIP proxy is really just an elaborate message routing mechanism.
It doesn't do any of the media handling, voicemail or anything else
really. So it is easier to get started quickly, relatively more
secure (as there is less code), easier to support, etc
> One thing that I think we should aim for is the ability to offer
> sub-accounts, so that our users can offer their friends and
> relatives VoIP accounts, so that DDs (etc.) get to do video
> conferencing with their relatives using Free Software, rather than
> being forced to use facetime/skype or nothing.
There are various ways to do this. One thing I would like to offer is
similar to the webrtc.lumicall.org service - basically, every DD will
be able to tell their friends "go to webrtc.debian.org, type my user
ID and click 'call'". The callers will not need to register, it will
be simple and anonymous, like a web form.
Other users could register through Lumicall or another service and due
to federation, they can then quickly and easily exchange calls with
@debian.org users
I've now updated the wiki page with more thorough infrastructure
requirements and submitted an RT ticket to the DSA team with IP
addressing requirements, that is the first step to enable everything
else. Once the boxes, IPs and certificate details are confirmed by
DSA I will then make another ticket with details of package
installation and config files to use.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=2lHB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: