[Council] JEP-20 Comments
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jul 18 15:53:44 CDT 2002
There was a last call and the only comment was something about browse and
disco, not feature negotiation (unless he intended to say that feature
negotation should be done in the context of a service discovery protocol
like browse or disco, which is just plain wrong). The JEP Editor took the
silence of the list to imply a lack of objections and moved ahead to a
vote. Last call means last call. If people had objections at that point,
they should've piped up.
That said, I don't take -1 votes personally and it just means the concerns
need to be addressed by the JEP author. So far several concerns have been
1. Mention of security negotation in paragraph 2 of section 1. As Joe has
pointed out, this paragraph can be removed with no appreciable impact on
the substance of the proposal. I move that we remove this paragraph.
2. The proposed protocol would not work to negotiate networking or
connection to a server, such as that described in the email Matthias sent
to Standards-JIG. However, the proposed protocol is explicitly designed
for negotiation of features between two network endpoints (i.e., two
clients). Matthias even wrote as follows:
I havn't thought about the usage of JEP-0020 because
I only thought of JEP-0020 as a protocol to negotiate
features between clients (or maybe between clients
and servers). But it's true, it has to be thought
about if this protocol can be used at the
networking/connection layer too.
Note the word "if". This statement is hypothetical. The protocol is not
designed to be used for the things being described here. If desired, the
JEP author can be asked to add text that explicitly forbids the use of
this protocol for *anything* except the negotiation of features between
3. I get the sense that perhaps more examples would be helpful.
These are the only concerns I have seen in this thread. Please email the
list if you know about more.
Jabber Software Foundation
On 18 Jul 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> I'm really really confused how this JEP got to a vote. I really just
> learned yesterday, at the 07-17 JSF meeting, that the JEP was in vote,
> and I decided to go back and read all of the associated emails to see
> what I was missing. I found a whole thread of pretty much people
> suggesting other methods, syntaxes, and what not for enhancing
> JEP-0020. Then i found a last call thread, there was one reply, even
> there it said that it still needed more review to be pushed forward. No
> reply to that about it going to vote. Yet, here we are. Even now,
> based on Matthias' comments we're finding things that could be changed.
> Why and How is this JEP ready for vote? I'd like to bring up these
> issues without putting in my own feelings on the JEP, so that I can
> better understand the process used on the JEP. If you want my actual
> feelings, just ask and I'll mail them in.
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
More information about the Council