[Council] VOTE (major cleanup)

Joe Hildebrand JHildebrand at jabber.com
Thu Oct 3 12:55:21 CDT 2002


> JEP-0003 (PASS), version 0.4
> 
> This has been changed to Informational. Since there exist 
> implementations,
> we are voting on moving this to Active. So +1 = Active, -1 = you have
> concerns.

-1 for the moment, planning on moving to +1... how do I discover that a
server supports pass?  Is there an implementation up and running at the
moment?  pass.jabber.org doesn't seem to be up.

> JEP-0008 (User Avatars), version 0.1
> 
> Consensus is that Avatars would be good but that implementing 
> something
> like this will require some of the pub/sub pieces. In line with pgm's
> email I move that we vote this to Active with the alternative being
> Deferred. So for this vote, we'll do +1 = Active, -1 = Deferred.

-1. I'd also like to see file transfer first, so that we have a way of
moving these around.

> JEP-0014 (Message Tone), version 0.2
> 
> Consensus is that this is addressed by the Emoticons JEP JEP-0038).  I
> move that we vote this to Active with the alternative being 
> Rejected). So
> +1 = Active, -1 = Rejected.

-1.  :) is good enough for now.  

Actually, I could see a case being made for something like this is in
presence, for things like StPeter's happiness meter hooked to a
potentiometer, but I don't think it has a lot of value for messages.

> JEP-0015 (Account Transfer), version 0.4
> 
> Consensus is that there are major security issues etc. with 
> this concept.  
> I move that we vote on moving this to Active with the 
> alternative being
> Rejected. So +1 = Active, -1 = Rejected.

-1.  There exists a partial solution already for this, which is to send all
of your contacts from one account to the other using:
<message><x xmlns="jabber:x:roster"/></message>

I'm not sure how to get the security right to automate it further than this,
particularly when there really isn't a good way to generate
cryptographically -strong trust in the S2S case.

> JEP-0017 (Naive Packet Framing Protocol), version 0.2
> 
> No known implementations. I move that we vote on moving this to Active
> with the alternative being Rejected. So +1 = Active, -1 = Rejected.

-1.  Interesting idea, but with no publicly-visible implementation for an
informational JEP, and no ongoing work, let's treat it as an interesting
prototype, and move on.

> JEP-0025 (Jabber HTTP Polling), version 0.2
> 
> This is an Informational JEP documenting an existing implementation. I
> move that we vote on moving this to Active. So +1 = Active, 
> -1 = you have
> concerns that need to be addressed.

+1.  We need to have a standards-track version of this soon.  The main
starting-point difference is probably moving stuff out of the HTTP header,
and into name/value pairs in the body.  And all of the arguing about which
firewalls it needs to traverse.... :)

> JEP-0037 (Data Stream Proxy Service), version 0.8
> 
> No implementations, may be superseded by JOBS (JEP-0042). Let's take a
> vote on moving this to Active, with +1 = Active and -1 = Rejected.

-1.  No anonymous authors, please.



More information about the Council mailing list