[Council] Re: VOTE: JEP-0073 (Basic IM Protocol Suite)
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 1 13:19:16 CST 2004
In article <E6B928D2-41AA-11D9-B337-000A95984138 at box5.net>,
Thomas Muldowney <temas at box5.net> wrote:
> The Introduction history lesson almost made me miss the final bit about
> what the JEP really does. While this could be nice for people that
> don't know the order of events, people that read this JEP might already
> know all of that and end up skipping the crucial bits.
> Before I can vote I also need clarification on this sentence in Section
> (note that this entire JEP applies to software implementations, not
> necessarily to particular deployments thereof)
> I understand the intent, but in practice it seems to horribly break
> things. It means I'm using a stamped basic level client to try and
> connect to a stamped basic server, but then bam, things aren't working.
> What happens when a deployment doesn't have disco, or I'm expecting
> in-band registration to exist? It just seems like this could
> potentially damage a user experience, and create headaches for
> developers that are trying to work with this JEP which ties all the
> other techs into one heading. Is it too idealistic to state that
> claiming Basic IM Suite means you actually provide it all?
That proviso really applies only to in-band registration, and perhaps
also to jabber:iq:auth. The point of protocol suites is to get software
up to snuff. Exactly which features a given deployment enables is
something that's really up to the user or admin (heck, if it's
open-source, I could hack the code to disable certain things, no?). But
it probably would be good to specify precisely the scope of that word
"necessarily" in the text, or refer to a later section, or just strike
the reference to deployments.
More information about the Council