[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 14:28:00 UTC 2020


On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:09, Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> 15 Jan 2020 8:02:01 pm Ralph Meijer :
> >
> > Do you know of any specifications that might have been a candidate,
> > outside of OMEMO. I.e. is this actually a problem we need to solve?
>
> Not due to IPR, but the AES-GCM URL hack, which is widely deployed but was rejected, would fit this nieche too, I think.

I don't have time right now to dig through and make a list, but yes,
there are a handful of protoXEPs that have been rejected in the past
couple of years that are nevertheless (extremely) widely implemented.
Also some things that are simply not documented anywhere official
right now (such as how to use OOB to send inline images successfully).

I would be very much in favour of a new type similar to "Historical"
for these [1], with an easy path between this state and our typical
standards track.

All that happens otherwise is that they get published elsewhere (if at
all), it increases fragmentation, and it makes life harder for
developers writing modern interoperable XMPP software.

I consider OMEMO to be a special case among these due to the IPR
issue, and I would be happy to see it included with an appropriate
disclaimer.

Regards,
Matthew

[1]: or redefine/rename Historical, which did not have the foresight
to predict that the XSF would be rejecting stuff that was widely
implemented.


More information about the Members mailing list