[Members] First XSF Certificate Meeting

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue May 12 09:44:45 CDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

On 5/11/09 5:48 PM, David Banes wrote:

> Can I raise a caution flag here as it occurs to me other email, IM or
> messaging platforms don't go this far 

Perhaps that's why at least for IM and VoIP they don't have very good

> and in my opinion we should avoid
> doing anything that discourages developers, especially smaller
> innovative types that are often cash poor, from adopting XMPP.

How does an automated testing tool discourage developers? I think it
makes their lives easier.

> Testing for compliance, and implementing feature sets to comply could
> become very expensive. We wouldn't want to end up in a situation where
> only the Microsoft's and Ciscos of the world can afford to get their
> XMPP solutions certified.

I don't think that will be the case. In fact, I think this would level
the playing field even more, because currently only the really dedicated
vendors have in-house protocol testing suites.

> This could mean that the smaller innovative developers get shut out of
> business opportunities even if they may have a 'better' solution. 

I don't see that.

> I've seen this happening whilst running a dev team for Symantec. Norton
> AV often got the big deals based on 'Certifications' when smaller
> companies often had better technology, but couldn't
> fund compliance testing and R&D.

The community would be funding the compliance testing, not big companies.

> We might also consider who would be managing and policing such a scheme,
> this in itself will be expensive as XMPP becomes more popular.

How much policing is involved with something like validator.w3.org??

> This said, I fully support the current scheme as a voluntary opt in.

This entire effort is envisioned as voluntary.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Members mailing list