[Members] [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Server to Server communication over STANAG 50666 ARQ

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Thu Aug 27 16:58:29 UTC 2015

> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> I'm actually glad for more views on this, even if they've been overtaken by events in a positive way.
> On 27 August 2015 at 15:28, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com <mailto:kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>> wrote:
> XEP 0001 says one of the XSF objectives is "To guarantee that any person or entity can implement the protocols without encumbrance”.   Has anyone claimed that STANAG 5066 is a patent or otherwise encumbered protocol?   Dave claimed referenced spec is not publicly available.  While availability of a spec might create an obstacle to implementation, I don’t think obstacles in obtaining a referenced spec were quite what the authors of XEP 0001 had in mind when they wrote this objective.  I they had meant such we wouldn’t be able to reference any spec that only available for a fee, as a fee is also an obstacle to obtaining the spec.
> Steve has stated that he would provide a copy of the reference spec to anyone wanting it.  That seems sufficiently “publicly available” to me.  While certainly it would be nice if the spec were readily downloadable via the public WWW… but I don’t think we have any such requirement in specs we reference.
> Yes, indeed - I thought this was a grey area, rather than an outright blocker, which was why I was seeking community feedback.
> We talk, on our website and in general terms, about XMPP being an open standard, which implies specifications are freely available amongst various other things. Could we claim that a document you could get from Steve if you asked is "freely available" in the sense most people would expect?

Consulting my dictionary, freely means:
	a) not under the control of another
	b) without restrictions or interference
	c) in copious or generous amounts
	d) openly and honestly
	e) willing and readily; without compulsion

A referenced document is generally under the control of the listed authors and/or publisher…
A referenced document is commonly published with some sort of restrictions.  Our XEPs are copyright XSF and our notice does come with some restrictions (all of which I think are reasonable).
We’re pretty copious in our production of XEPs. :-)
We certainly reference documents which we produced is less open and honest ways the XSF produces documents.

I’m not quite sure what “most people” expect…  as far as obstacles to obtaining specs go, the less the better… but I’m accepting of a minor obstacles such as reasonable fees, whether in the form of a paywall or the cost of purchasing a printed book.

> Does a hard dependency on such a document have any bearing on the openness of the specification itself?

When I think of XSF as being an “Open Standards Organization” or a producer of “Open Standards” for “open protocols", I consider the “open” to generally refer to our community and processes and more specifically refer to the XEP 0001 stated objective "To work in an fair, open, objective manner."

> I don't think there are clear-cut answers to these questions. 

When it comes to the suitability of any particular reference, I’m happy to discuss as we have in this case.

— Kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20150827/691a5718/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list