[Council] proto-JEP: Secure Stanzas

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Mon Apr 5 19:29:04 CDT 2004

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:52:59PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > If we all acknowledge that the protocol that was forced upon us by the 
> > IETF doesn't fit in, why can't we publish something that does fit in 
> > more?  
> We can do anything we want to, of course. I think the problem is
> publishing a protocol that is essentially something the IETF rejected,
> which makes it appear that we're thumbing our noses at the IETF
> standards process.

Why do we care? The IETF and the JSF have different scopes, different
goals. A non-CPIM e2e draft might not be suited to the IETF (something I
would still argue against), but it is entirely suitable for the Jabber
community, which the JSF services.


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: Digital signature
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20040406/878953c1/attachment.pgp

More information about the Council mailing list