[Council] meeting agenda, 2006-03-23

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Mar 23 09:26:35 CST 2006


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> For some reason, I thought our meeting this week was to be tomorrow, and
> not today (-:
> 
> I have a previous engagement, and can't make today's meeting, so here's
> my thoughts:

OK, thanks for weighing in on the list.

> 1)  JEP-0145 (Annotations):  +1
> 2)  JEP-0146 (Remote Controlling Clients): +1
> 3)  JEP-0147 (XMPP URI Scheme Query Components):  +1
> 4)  JEP-0130 (Waiting Lists):  +1

I took this off the agenda pending further discussions with those who
have implemented it -- we may need to make some further adjustments to
clarify some matters, so I'd prefer to do that all at once.

> 5)  JEP-0124 (HTTP Binding):  I'm -1 until I can fully digest (more
> comments below)

Nod.

> 6,7) Proto-JEPs on Forwarding:  +1
> 8)  JEP-0033 (Extended Stanza Addressing):  +1, and about time (-:
> 9)  JEP-0133 (Service Administration):  Need to read through it again
> before I weigh in
> 10)  JEP-0078 (Non-SASL Authentication):  +1
> 11)  Proto-JEP (Server-Side Message Archiving):  +1
> 12-14) Proto-JEPs on Jingle:  +1
> 15)  Proto-JEP (Zoep): -0  (We've tried the "SIP in XMPP" approach
> before, and it didn't work.  But I'm not stopping this one yet)

Duly noted.

> Now back to JEP-0124:
> I'm generally opposed to such large changes to Draft JEPs (which this
> appears to me to be the case), unless the changes fix deficienies (e.g.
> JEP-0045 and JEP-0060).  The biggest reason is that it makes it hard for
> multiple implementors to properly interoperate, because they need to
> somehow determine what version of a JEP the other parties have
> implemented (unless the changes can be 100% ignored).
> 
> I'm wondering if the multi-stream stuff could not have been done as an
> add-on (and therefore a different JEP), but I'll read through it and
> weigh in later.

Ah, good point -- I'll look at it again from that angle as well, though
I think all the implementers have said it would be backwards compatible.

Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEIr4qNF1RSzyt3NURAl0mAKDRy0p2zGncrW9lEzBYUmrPV4nBHQCeMphF
EcAmM/XV/K8x/KryAcQZAfk=
=pRbC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20060323/05ef9d92/smime.bin


More information about the Council mailing list