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

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Mon Nov 29 08:56:57 CST 2004


I think this JEP provides a very clear target for what implementors 
should accomplish, and have their stuff "Just Work".  Even without 
changes, I'm +1.

However...

Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> 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?
> 

This one's a little tricky to decide on.  Although I'm not the author, I 
think the approach taken here is similar to what happened for the 
XMPP-Core/-IM specs, in that we needed to have a number of things 
"mandatory to implement", but deployments may/may not actually use them.

On the one hand, not stating what must and must not be used gives 
deployers the option to customize their network.  On the other hand, 
what is included in JEP-0073 is so critical to interop that *not* 
deploying with it can have disastrous effects.  On the gripping hand, it 
really is up to the deployer to determine what works and what doesn't 
(for them), and that could involve some tribulations with their trials.

I say we leave it as-is, and wait for feedback from DRAFT determine if 
this needs further clarification.


-  LW


More information about the Council mailing list