[Council] 2015-12-23 Council meeting minutes

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Dec 23 22:30:50 UTC 2015


I'd rather not hold up documents from being published because we know
changes are desired. That seems more like a reason to accept them, than to
block them. We expect, and hope for, improvements to documents in
experimental state.

I'd hate to see the left shift the IETF has seen. Changes do happen,
especially early in a document's lifetime, and this is a good thing.

And I know I've argued against incompatible changes to experimental
documents, too - but I hope these cases where we have a long standing
experimental specification with high deployment are the outliers, and we
don't start optimizing for this failure case.

Of course, you can, and should, veto the document for whatever reasons you
choose, and I'm not claiming that the reasons below are somehow invalid -
but they are reasons that worry me.

I'm happy that the XSF work on this document, and accept it as a XEP.

Dave.

(On tablet, sorry if its terse)
On 23 Dec 2015 6:28 pm, "Lance Stout" <lancestout at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > ## ProtoXEP Jingle ICE: Accept as Experimental
> >
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-ice.html
>
>
> I'm going to -1 this *temporarily*, because there are still open items
> raised on standards@ that need to be addressed before publishing. Those
> changes would be backward incompatible with this draft, and I'd rather not
> have to bump the namespace so soon :)
>
>
> Those active items are:
>
> * Use a separate attribute for the tcp type instead of mixing with the
> existing type attribute
> * Change the ice-gathering-complete signal to be wrapped in a <transport
> /> element (and no need for new :info: namespace here)
>
>
>
> /Lance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20151223/97eb616c/attachment.html>


More information about the Council mailing list