[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications
jonas at wielicki.name
Thu Jan 16 15:22:02 UTC 2020
On Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2020 15:28:00 CET Matthew Wild wrote:
> 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 , 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 second all of this, and I suggest that we bring this to standards@, too.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Members