[Council] JEP Roadmap

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Wed Nov 6 20:25:21 CST 2002


Yeah, but you've implemented as well, which means you could probably
change it pretty fast too =)  So why would we defer something we've
already started working with?

--temas


On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:21:40AM +1100, Robert Norris wrote:
> > 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/20021106/a9b34d90/attachment.pgp


More information about the Council mailing list