[Standards] certification etc.

[Stephen Pendleton]

I also agree with the idea of removing the RECOMMENDED items and just
keeping the REQUIRED items. For example, to meet "Basic IM" you would need
to implement XMPP CORE, XMPP IM, and Service Discovery. Perhaps move the
RECOMMENDED items to the next tier as REQUIRED items (in this case
"Intermediate IM").


-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:35 PM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] certification etc.


On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:57:20AM +0100, Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 schrieb:
> >Unless you are running over low bandwidth communications like SATCOM 
> >or Cellular Modems. We use lots of high latency low b/w 
> >communications links. TLS does not work well in those environments 
> >which is why we use straight ZLIB and are looking at supporting 
> >efficient XML.
> 
> Sure there are valid applications for XEP stream compression.
> 
> But I don't think that just because something as an application does 
> not
> need that it gets added to the basic IM suite. IMO there should be only 
> the smallest set of protocols we think they have to be supported in any 
> case. If we add to many protocols to the basic IM suite it will result, 
> the importance of this list gets lost.

Agreed.

/psa