Talk:Inter-Asterisk eXchange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French translation[edit]

i am looking for a translation for the iax text in french, please help me ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.44.157 (talk • contribs) 10:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a bit of a dissapontment, but: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAX
—Brian Patrie 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I didn't what i did was just to add software that supports IAX. Is silly to hide the informations like you do now. Why are you doing that? It doesn't make sense to me. Please explain me how to do it right and i will do it. I do try to contribute and not only to Yate, but to other articles since i work in the VoIP field for more than 5 years. How can i contribute if you delete everyting, without explaining? ~ Diana Cionoiu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.206.79 (talk • contribs) 14:38, August 9, 2007 (UTC)

Diana, I left a message on your talk page right after deleting the link. You should have seen a warning when you came into WP that a message was left there. Also, please sign your posts on all comments left on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end. That date stamps and puts your id on it. The guidelines for adding links can be found here WP:EL. In general, adding information on WP about your own organization is discouraged because of the conflict of interest WP:COI and neutrality guidelines which would also be good for you to read. If you feel your information is important, add a comment on the article's discussion page and request another neutral editor add the information if they agree. Calltech 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My job is VoIP, is kind of silly to deny that. The external link was a corect information, since you did the review you can decide for your self if the link was corect or not. Since the information was corect, i don't see any reason to not be there. And even if i am working on Yate it doesn't mean that Yate doesn't support IAX, and in the end this is Wikipedia all about, knowleage, right? On the other hand you should know that i respect the COI even when i have to write about Yate, because i don't believe that credibility in general can be build using lies. Diana cionoiu 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Yate to the Server Software section. Alex Pankratov 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many other external links to organizations or software companies do you see on this article? None. All of these are all just as relevant and as important. WP is not a collection of links. I'm reverting once more and request that you do not add it again. Calltech 02:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calltech, I don't see any point in repeated removal of the link from underneath Yate reference. Yate is notable, the link is a reliable primary source on the subject. "Not a collection of links" argument simply does not apply here as it's not an External Links section. You are completely misinterpreting the situation. Not providing the link amounts to intentionally inconveniencing WP readers and as such it depricates the overall quality of the article. Besides, formally, none of the items on WP EL policy what-not-link list applies to this case. I am reverting your change and I ask you to put aside your and Diana's "history" and re-consider the situation. Alex Pankratov 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your last reversal. I accidentally hit Enter before typing the reason. The reason is that "WP is not a collection of links" argument applies to the cases of bloated External Links sections. It is not applicable to in-text linking. Your type of reversal is routinely labeled as vandalism by many other editors, simply because it removes valuable information from the article. As I said above, please re-consider the situation without keeping the edit history in mind. Alex Pankratov 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diana has a history of spamming WP under her current name and an older IP address. I'm at a loss why YATE deserves an EL while the other projects listed under this article are simply referenced by name. There has been a major effort by quite a number of WP editors to cleanup these types of lists by removing the EL's. Since we are now at the 3RR level, I'm adding an entry in the Wikipedia talk:Spam Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam page to stop this blatant promotion on her part, whether directly or by soliciting others to help her promote her website and project. Calltech 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of Diana's edits as well as the history of sockpuppetery on Yate's AfD page. That's what I was referring to as a "history"; and it is unbeautiful. However it does not preclude Yate from being notable. I think we can agree on this. As far as EL goes, consider this - I am reading an article and I come across named notable subject (Yate or whatever). If it's not EL'd, I will be opening another browser window, navigating to Google, copy-pasting the name and then trying to decide which page is a primary page on the subject. If it's EL'd and the link is valid and reliable, my experience is greatly simplified and streamlined. This makes EL itself notable.
YATE is NOT notable per WP standards based upon the AfD you referenced and 2 other deletions, so no, I do not agree with this. This article was a collection of ELs and was cleaned up in April, long before Diana came along. If you disagree with WP:EL, then recommend changes there - WP is not a collection of links. Calltech 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop repeating the same invalid argument over and over again. The 'collection of links' implies the presence of the collection of links. Here however we are looking at the list of relevant references, some of which are external. As per my comment above, not providing an EL to go with a reference is simply detrimental to the quality of the article. Alex Pankratov 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid Argument? Its the WP:EL guideline. I keep repeating it because you are playing semantics over a list of external links to websites maintained under different headings which is by every definition a directory of links. They are NOT references. You are the one advocating ignoring WP guidelines or policy (WP policy is secondary?). Please quote to me where easier navigation is a justification for an EL? Calltech 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, it makes article plain better. Linked or not, the reference to the subject is already there. And given that WP has long adopted no-follow tag for all ELs, purging all explicit ELs hurts readers way more than it does linked page owners.
In this light, and going strictly by your description, I view previous effort of EL cleanup as erroneous. As I explained above, this sort of a cleanup fails very simply - it removes notable and relevant content from WP. Whether such edits are in a formal compliance with any other WP policy is secondary. Alex Pankratov 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, change WP guidelines then, don't just say you don't agree with them and that you aren't going to follow them. So far you've presented no argument why YATE is so extraordinary that it needs special consideration. Calltech 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yate in this context is important just because it has the only one other IAX implementation for a server except Asterisk. Diana cionoiu 13:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that your April edit that purged the article of ELs was remarkably wrong. I provided you with a justification as to why, to which you still haven't produced a concise answer. Alex Pankratov 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you the answer, you just chose to ignore it. Calltech 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, aside from this edit made by you I cannot seem to locate changes that would constitute "a major effort by quite a number of WP editors". Was it not just this article, but a Wikipedia-wide effort ? If so, can you provide a reference, I would like to read through a discussion that led to this decision. Thank you. Alex Pankratov 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review the changes made to virtually all of the List articles and you will see about a half dozen other editors and myself spending much of this year cleaning up these articles. The alternatives have been the complete removal of the lists from the articles or the total removal of some of the List articles themselves. I'll give you examples if you'd like. Calltech 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have a look at the discussion that led to this clean up. Resulting edits themselves are irrelevant at this point. The case of ELs used for externally referenced items is NOT covered by WP EL and it is not a subject to 'not a collection of links'. What's the point if keeping the references, but forcing readers to do an extra legwork to get more information ? This does not make any sense whatsoever and it looks plain childish at its best. Alex Pankratov 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The directory in this article is NOT a reference list. You keep referring to this (and former links) as references but they are not. The article contains simple lists of software and hardware groups and organizations related to or supporting the topic of this article. Before being deleted, they were a directory of links - PERIOD. Calltech 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I was referring to list items as "references" was the fact that they have about the same promotional value as links. That's because you made an anti-promotion stance comment (which I agree with by the way), so from that angle a link or a list item were 100% equivalent and neither should be on the page if they are of that nature. Anyways, I think the case can be considered closed to a mutual satisfaction ? Alex Pankratov 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Good luck! Calltech 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility[edit]

I will also like to modify the fact that IAX is very flexibile, because it sounds like advertising and because is not true. Compared with SIP, IAX is very less flexibile, because is based on IE's - Information Element - that has to be defined for every single new feature. IAX is very efficient, since every voice packet has just 4 bytes overhead insted of 12 bytes for RTP, and in trunking mode is even more efficient. Another problem with IAX is that is as flexibile as Asterisk is, and is very dependent on a single implementation. Basically in there world are just 2 implementations of an IAX library for server, and one is the original Asterisk one and one is for Yate. Freeswitch library is made for a client not for a server and is over used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana cionoiu (talk • contribs) 22:04, August 9, 2007 (UTC)

Basic Properties[edit]

Regarding the {fact} tag in the first sentence of Basic Properties section -- please see my exchange with Diana on my talk page for background information. Any comments on what's the best way to handle the wording are welcome. Alex Pankratov 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better lead?[edit]

Can someone who knows what this article is about write a better lead for this? I think this has something to do with Voice over Internet Protocol, but thats really all I get out of the intro. The first sentence is terrible and tells me nothing useful unless I know something advanced about telecommunications. I understand that this a very specific topic, but I had to click on three wikilinks to begin to understand what this sentence said. Thanks! Wickethewok 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to RFC[edit]

The text RFC 5456 is automatically linked to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5456 which is a 404 error. Can anything be done about this?Alan Bell tolc (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawbacks?[edit]

The drawbacks section is rather curious. It seems to be a listing of past issues in Asterisk that are solved in current releases, but are not related to the IAX protocol itself. The SIP page, for example, contains no listings of past security issues with particular implementations of the SIP protocol, and I don't think it's really germane to the protocol page itself. Is there a good reason for keeping this section? Corydon76 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0days[edit]

This seems to contradict itself: "There are currently no solutions to these issues" versus "This flaw no longer exists in up-to-date installations of Asterisk or other PBXes". This is confusing. Cmcqueen1975 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange&oldid=1202968577"