[Council] deprecating JEP-0016

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 4 18:04:00 CST 2003


Well, the other thing we can do is copy and paste from XMPP IM to JEP-0016
so that the latter tracks all the protocol changes. ;)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, David Waite wrote:

> 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.
> 
> -David Waite
> 
> 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.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >--
> >Peter Saint-Andre
> >Jabber Software Foundation
> >http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> >
> >On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, David Waite wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I'm +1 as long as the namespaces are different.
> >>
> >>-David Waite
> >>
> >>Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>We need to deprecate JEP-0016 in favor of what has been developed within
> >>>the XMPP WG. Any objections?
> >>>
> >>>Peter
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Peter Saint-Andre
> >>>Jabber Software Foundation
> >>>http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Council mailing list
> >>>Council at jabber.org
> >>>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Council mailing list
> >>Council at jabber.org
> >>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Council mailing list
> >Council at jabber.org
> >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> 




More information about the Council mailing list