[Council] JEP Roadmap

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Wed Nov 6 16:21:40 CST 2002


> I have to say I'm not so keen on the idea of 100% deferring parts to the
> WG.  I would much rather see us get at least an idea of where we want to
> go and start getting it out there.  Some of this stuff is too important
> to just skip over for a while.  The WG can then better formalize,
> hopefully with input from what we've learned.

On all the three things listed below, I know where I want them to go.
In the case of SASL, the WG is moving in a slightly different direction
to the (draft) JEP. I prefer the WG way of doing it (use extensions to
the stream header and a set of stream features). However, this would
mean reworking both the SASL and TLS JEPs, and writing another one about
stream versioning and features.

So, I think they should be deferred, since they're all related to the
use of streams, rather than application extensions (which is what I
understand the WG/JSF split to roughly cover), and they're all covered
by the WG charter.

Ultimately though, I just want them documented. I'm happy to write JEPs
if people think that would be more appropriate. I want to implement all
of this, but I don't want to do it twice.

Rob.

-- 
Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20021107/e32db9c4/attachment.pgp


More information about the Council mailing list