[Council] New Year, Time to Work

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Mon Jan 19 16:17:35 CST 2004


On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:36:09PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, it seems everyone is pretty busy. Here is my take on a number of
> Experimental JEPs (ignoring for now the automatically Deferred JEPs):
> 
> 18 (Invisible Presence) -- superseded by 126 (Invisibility)
> 126 -- <presence type='invisible'/> must die

Yup, I'll be happy once 18 is dead, and 126 looks sweet.

> 33 (Packet Headers) -- possibly ready for Last Call, will follow up with
> Joe Hildebrand

This is shaping up nicely. I have a few issues with it, which I'll raise
a seperate email to s-j. The big thing, however, is that it depends on
Infobits, so it can't move forward yet.

> 72 (SOAP over Jabber) -- no opinion

Same. Might be worth trying to get a rough opinion on it from s-j (just
to see if anyone is using it).

> 85 (Chat State Notifications) -- I still maintain that this is the way
> to go, but IIRC no consensus was reached previously

A good summary was posted to s-j this morning. If it was to go to vote
right now, I'd probably vote 0.

> 100 (Gateway Interaction) -- I'd like to move forward on this, but it
> would be quite helpful to receive feedback from gateway developers first
> (hint, hint)

It seems to be correct to me, but I've never actually implemented a
gateway.

> 105 (Tree Transfer) -- still seems useful to me; shall I ping Ryan?

I think it could be useful. The only potential issue I see is one thats
been raised before - it might not actually be a SI profile, since it
doesn't initiate a stream directly. Its probably just semantics though -
it would operate the same either way, and it still depends on SI/FT.

> 106 (JID Escaping) -- I don't see a strong need or push for this

Neither do I, but its relatively benign, and its probably a useful thing
to have in the toolbox.

> 109 (Vacation Messages) -- Matt says this could be a command (JEP 50),
> and I guess I kinda agree

Well it could, but this feels a little like the old x:data vs. XML
debate - ie x:data is good where the schema is unknown, otherwise, just
use XML, and avoid the extra layer.

For some background, see thread on the JEP-0020 vote from October 2002:

  http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2002-October/000573.html

Though I might be wrong in my thinking about this, so I'll probably go
with the majority.

(And no, vacation messages aren't that important either way, but this
could set a precedent around the use of commands, which we should get
some implementations of this year).

> 113 (Simple Whiteboarding) -- I'm expecting a JEP submission for 
> whiteboarding with SVG, which I think is a preferable approach

Agreed.

> 115 (Client Capabaility) -- I like this one and think it can move 
> forward soon

Yeah, this one is quite cool. I want to make the server support it in
some way :)

> 116 (Encrypted Sessions) -- controversial; personally I like this
> approach but I know others don't; also I would like to abstract the
> chat-session negotiation piece out of this, because there is interest
> in being able to negotiate chat sessions more generally among some folks
> I've talked to (e.g., Internet2)

Using some sort of session negotiation also came up in the recent s-j
discussion about packet acknowledgement and reliable messaging; there is
value in breaking it out, IMO.

As to the encryption bits, I'm behind this one because its the first
encryption JEP I've read that I can actually understand and see how to
implement - its really quite simple.

Rob.

-- 
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/20040120/71fcb2d8/attachment.pgp


More information about the Council mailing list