[standards-jig] RFC draft 3.0
iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 15 07:19:59 UTC 2002
On 2/14/02 1:58 PM, "James Barry" <JMBarry at jabber.com> wrote:
>> way to go. I suppose the question is whether this is an RFC
>> for defining
>> implementation compliance or simply an FYI.
> The intent of this is the be an informational document in IETF parlance.
> The only reason this copy doesn't say that is we have yet to figure out how
> to do that in the generator that we run it through from the IETF.
> We want first to submit Jabber as a informational RFC, so that we can be
> documented at the IETF. Right now people can search the IETF database and
> not find any info on Jabber. This should allow us to get published without
> debate only as an informational document. We felt this is necessary because
> of the growing volume of Jabber usage throughout the Internet, and the lack
> of "official" documentation.
Ok. Great. Makes sense and I think things look good for that.
> All this RFC should represent is how Jabber works today. Section 13
> outlines what we could be working on for future specifications. Today lets
> get what is used down properly. Tomorrow we can piece part the new advances
> in the standards groups where we will submit.
Agreed. Which brings me to the topic of the schemas. Someone said that
they were not correct. I'm not a schema guru so I can't tell but we should
make sure that it is correct before submitting. If we can't verify it,
perhaps we should leave them out and only include the DTDs until we can
ensure the schemas dictate what we want.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Standards