[Foundation] JEP expiration dates

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Sep 20 11:33:39 CDT 2001


Yes, RFCs supersede. We already have a mechanism for this (changing the
old spec to "Obsolete" and noting which spec supersedes it).

I too prefer hard expiration dates with renewal if necessary, since it
forces the issue to be addressed.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email/jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
web: http://www.saint-andre.com/

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Peter Millard wrote:

> RFC's supersede old ones.. We could do the same.
> 
> Peter M.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piers Harding" <piers at ompa.net>
> To: <members at jabber.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] JEP expiration dates
> 
> 
> >
> > How do RFCs work with respect to major changes in technology, that rework
> the approach of an old problem ( like pub/sub ) will - do they amend the old
> RFC, or do they create an new one stating that " it supercedes " the old?
> >
> > This sort of thing must have happened before?
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:08:16PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > OK, we need to put our heads together here...
> > >
> > > In today's online conference of Foundation members (log available at
> > >
> http://perl.jabber.org/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2001-09-19.html
> ),
> > > we discussed the desirability of placing an expiration date on some or
> all
> > > Jabber Enhancement Proposals. The motivation for this discussion is the
> > > sad fate of the User Avatars JEP
> > > (http://foundation.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0008.html), which is stuck before
> > > the Council right now (see http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/council/
> > > for the discussions). Part of the perceived problem with the avatars JEP
> > > is that the proposed protocol extension is a bit of a hack (using <x/>
> > > tags inside all presence packets) and we wouldn't do it that way if we
> had
> > > live browsing or a good pub/sub system. However, we don't have either of
> > > those we won't for a while, so we need a common protocol in the interim.
> > > One point that came out of the discussion (again, see the log) is the
> > > possibility of putting an expiration date on JEPs like this, or even on
> > > all JEPs. There are two options here:
> > >
> > > 1. Hard expiration dates -- and require that the JEP come up
> > > for review on a regular basis (e.g., every six months) and be
> re-affirmed
> > > by the Jabber Council at that time for another six months or whatever. I
> > > call this the "sunset law" version -- protocols (or some of them,
> anyway)
> > > are automatically obsoleted if they are not re-affirmed by the Council
> on
> > > a set schedule.
> > >
> > > 2. Soft expiration dates -- the proposed protocol is accepted as a
> > > temporary solution, with the proviso that once such-and-such is in place
> > > (e.g., live browsing or a pub/sub system) then the protocol needs to be
> > > re-evaluated and an effort needs to be made to come up with a
> replacement
> > > protocol, thus obsoleting the temporary one.
> > >
> > > Which of these options do y'all think is more workable? Is there a third
> > > way around this? Is this not even a problem? Your feedback is welcome.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > email/jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> > > web: http://www.saint-andre.com/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list