[Council] meeting agenda, 2007-06-25

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Jul 2 16:50:28 CDT 2007

Chris Mullins wrote:
> Well, just recommending it is defiantly including it. 

RECOMMENDED essentially has no teeth, it's just an FYI for future years.
Plus until servers support PEP, clients will have no incentive to
implement it. Chicken and egg. Servers are the chickens on this one.

> I'm just hesitant even to make it recommended at this point, as I'm not
> convinced it's mature enough. Pubsub seems mature at this point, but
> PEP? I'm not sold yet. Only 8 weeks ago we were debating dropping it
> folding it into PubSub or something else. 

No we were not. We talked about restructuring how PEP was documented,
which I have done. Follow the links from here for details:


> If everyone runs out and implements PEP (which will likley happen if
> it's put in there) and then we discover issues with the spec, then those
> issues can't really be addressed as the deployed base is too large. 

We've had consensus on PEP since the XMPP devcon in August 2006. It
hasn't changed significantly since then. PEP has been stable since last
September. All we're doing now is rearranging the documentation a bit
and clarifying the disco#info features.

And we're only saying it's RECOMMENDED for servers in 2008 rather than
REQUIRED (though it may change to REQUIRED in 2009).

Given the foregoing, I am having a hard time understanding the objection.


Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20070702/d4baf26d/smime.bin

More information about the Council mailing list