[Foundation] Draft JID list
dwaite at jabber.com
Wed May 23 18:15:41 CDT 2001
Rahul Dave wrote:
> I feel there's not much point to just generate proposals, or JEEP's, unless
> there is an implementation aspect. Reference implementations are wanted, I think.
> The JIG ought to vote on whether a proposal is worth working on for the members
> at large, if its a core protocol, or standards, or server thing, but this
> is obviously not needed for clients or transports.
I would argue that a proposal is fine, but if it is 'ratified' as a recommendation
it needs to have an implementation. This could even be an unspoken rule, depending
how it is ratified (majority vote by members?)
> > to the general membership for voting. Perhaps proposals MUST come from
> > their respective JIGs to qualify for voting? Otherwise the membership may
> > vote on protocol changes that they don't fully understand and have not
> > been analyzed by the protocol GID - causing problems?
> > I have not included a Systems/Middleware JIG because I don't think that
> > one would produce much that actually effects the Jabber system it's self.
> I have to disagree here. I think formalization of SOAP over jabber protocol,
> and even maybe issues of aligning jabber and SOAP headers, or defing SOAP
> equivalents of standards for transport over http..we want to interop afterall
> , right?.. are all important concerns. Ofcourse this may be better handled in
> a standards JIG, but I think doing RPC, both synchronous and asynchronous over
> jabber is a big topic by itself.
I also don't think it will be a big concentration at the start - currently JAM is
either hybernating or in a coma. If the interest is there, it will quickly become
its own JIG.
> I have to agree with Iain that separating the Jabber standard from the
> jabber protocol is important. I think the jabber protocol..the streams, the
> tcp, etc could be handled by the server or transports group. Let the jabber
> standards group handle the standard namespaces, and middleware do
> SOAP+XMLRPC over jabber, and jabber over SOAP/XMl-RPC. It might be argued that
> part of this ought to be handled by standards, and that middleware be a sub-jig
> which I think is a fine solution too. I dont think then that we need protocol,
> just have transport and standards. Also things like jabber email would be
> done by standards..this would be a very big JIG...
> I'm not sure whats the best splitup. I think middleware group should be like
> standards, but without burdening standards for IM with the concerns of
> those like me who are more
> interested in a general xml bus....
> Also, I think business and compliance are two sides of the same "branding"
> coin, so should be together.
I agree there as well, at business and compliance should be together, at least for
More information about the Members