[Council] deprecating JEP-0016
mass at akuma.org
Tue Mar 4 17:58:41 CST 2003
Since the JEP is draft and not final, the JEP-0001 rules do note:
"However, note that because a Draft standard may still require
additional field experience and may be subject to change based on such
experience, mission-critical or large-scale implementations of the Draft
standard may not be advisable"
I'm fine with keeping it the same and having 'ownership' for the
development of privacy lists in the working group's court, but think we
should also announce such things loudly on standards-jig so people
evaluating the existing draft know where to place their feedback and get
information on changes.
Perhaps we should make a rule for the future - It is understood that
'deprecating' a standard does not mean that the standard or any
implementations of it go away. Thus, new names (of which we have an
unlimited supply) SHOULD be chosen on non-backwards compatible changes,
with exceptions being decided by the JEP author and evaluated by the
council (asynchronously). This should probably be the case anything
blessed draft, since JEP-0053 states that is the event by which names
are officially registered. Of course, we cannot dictate any sort of
change tracking or backwards compatibility for informational JEPs.
For this particular case, changing the name might have the effect
within the working group of opening a pandora's box of naming issues,
the authors are (presumably ) in favor, and I'm +1.
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>We have two options:
>1. Change JEP-0016
>2. Change XMPP IM
>If we go with #2, the ns could be something like 'xmpp:iq:privacy' or
>'urn:ietf:rfc:xmpim-num:privacy', which is better since it conforms to
>RFC2648 or whatever it is. However, if JEP-0016 is actually deprecated
>then why does it matter? A step beyond deprecated would be to remove it
>entirely. I don't particularly want to start changing namespace names in
>the XMPP drafts, because once we change one, people will want to change
>them all and that is just more brain damage than I can handle.
>Jabber Software Foundation
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, David Waite wrote:
>>I'm +1 as long as the namespaces are different.
>>Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>We need to deprecate JEP-0016 in favor of what has been developed within
>>>the XMPP WG. Any objections?
>>>Jabber Software Foundation
>>>Council mailing list
>>>Council at jabber.org
>>Council mailing list
>>Council at jabber.org
>Council mailing list
>Council at jabber.org
More information about the Council