[Members] s/JEP/XEP/g

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 18 10:30:38 CDT 2006


Artur Hefczyc wrote:
> On Thursday 17 August 2006 18:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I think it may be time to change our protocol branding to XMPP.
> 
> I think this is a good idea.
> 
> Although we can expect some more confusion at the beginning.
> There are still a few applications (clients and servers) which don't
> have XMPP (RFCs) implemented yet. They still use old "Jabber" protocol.
> And "Jabber" term used to be used for the old protocol (pre-RFC) itself.
> 
> So if we change to call protocol just XMPP and all JEPs to XEPs we should
> also decide how do we call the old protocol, that is not fully XMPP compliant
> implementation which was valid a few years ago.

XMPP 0.9.

XMPP 1.0 is what's in RFCs 3920 and 3921. In fact, I would argue that
XMPP 1.0 is what's in RFC 3920, and that RFC 3921 also defines some XMPP
extensions that just happen to be used for core IM functionality.
Therefore I would say that only JEP-0078 is really XMPP 0.9. See also:

http://www.xmpp.org/specs/rfc3920.html#diffs
http://www.xmpp.org/specs/rfc3921.html#diffs

If we move privacy lists back to JEP-0016 (to be replaced with JEP-0191)
and remove session establishment (both of these items are being
discussed on the Standards-JIG list), then the "diffs" section
rfc3921bis, then JEP-0191 will be the only difference between XMPP 0.9
and XMPP 1.0 (1.1?) for core IM and presence extensions. So that leaves
the diffs in RFC 3920 (and rfc3920bis) as defining the delta between
XMPP 0.9 and XMPP 1.0.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20060818/020193e3/smime-0001.bin


More information about the Members mailing list