[Foundation] Jabber vs XMPP Analysis

[Matt Tucker]

Ben,

> The reality is that there are a lot of people that choose not to use the
> Jabber terminology.

I would hope that you would least acknowlege that there are valid 
reasons for this given the experiences a few of us have posted about 
using the Jabber brand.

> As I stated in my previous email, the JSF builds
> Jabber solutions on top of XMPP. XMPP is what is being developed by the
> IETF, Jabber is what is being developed by the JSF. The extensions to XMPP
> that you reference so regularly is what make up Jabber, and I think I have
> offered compelling evidence (and references) of other Internet protocols
> that do exactly what we are doing here.

Well, this is the point of disagreement then. We that signed the 
proposal don't want any protocol activities branded as Jabber.

It's also worth noting that you never replied to my analysis of why your 
comparison to other internet protocols is flawed. Consider the following 
two examples:

1) SMTP to ESMTP or HTTP to HTTP 1.1 -- extensions to an existing 
protocol meant to enhance the existing functionality.
2) HTTP to WebDAV -- a new system for a totally different purpose that 
happens to be built on top of an existing protocol.

The extensions to XMPP that the JSF develops are much more in line with 
protocol extensions, not a new system meant to accomplish something 
different. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have a different name.

> I'm afraid we aren't, then. I thought you had finally come to realize what
> we (the JSF) and we (the Jabber community) commonly refer to as Jabber. I
> was hoping that you had decided to join our community, instead of trying
> to divide it, but I guess its clear you feel that our community does not
> fit you business needs. This saddens me greatly, but I hope that others in
> our community will continue to see the value of us all working together,
> as a team.

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty lame accusation. The people that signed 
the proposal are already a part of this community -- we're JSF members, 
sponsors of the JSF, JEP authors, JSF committee leads, creators of Open 
Source XMPP software, and creators of commercial XMPP software. It's 
perfectly legitimate for us to come to the JSF membership with an issue 
that we feel is important. If you read through our proposal, our intent 
is to further unite and to enlarge the community by using non-commercial 
terminology for our protocol work -- not to "divide the community".

Regards,
Matt