[Council] Re: VOTE: JEP-0073 (Basic IM Protocol Suite)

Peter Saint-Andre 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 
> 2:
> (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 mailing list