[Foundation] Draft JID list

[Iain Shigeoka]

At 03:32 PM 5/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Protocol Development
>         Presents all proposals for protocol change to the membership
>         for vote. Document protocol changes and maintain protocol docs.

Since the intent of this effort is more precision in both language and 
definitions, I'd like to start on the right foot and have this switched to 
Standards Development.  The Jabber standard is more than just a protocol 
definition.  There is the naming standard used in JID's and the data type 
standards that define jabber packets (message, presence, iq, etc).  These 
can and probably should be developed separate from the protocols that 
describe how these standards are used in communication (but part of the 
overall "Jabber Standard" effort).

One of the reasons I'd push for this distinction is the hope that future 
protocol standards (say Jabber protocol bindings to an asynchronous 
connection model more compatible with mobile connected devices) can be 
created and still be compliant with other aspects of the Jabber standard... 
unless the community sees the current TCP/IP stream binding of Jabber 
protocols being the one and only protocol we will be permitting.

I'm also a bit concerned that splitting things between too many lists will 
dilute Jabber effort.  I would think that until the traffic warrants it, 
its best to actually have as many JIG's as possible share lists.  I've seen 
it before when a project uses 8 different lists and only one ends up 
getting used (usually dev), all the other ones only get occasional "is this 
list still alive" messages in them.  I think this may be even worse if the 
Foundation JIG lists are separate from the jabber.org lists... what will be 
the overlap/reuse/confusion/commonality between the protocol at jabber.org and 
protocol at foundation.jabber.org lists?

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com