[standards-jig] Outstanding Issues

DJ Adams dj.adams at pobox.com
Tue Jul 9 05:56:14 UTC 2002

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 09:38:39PM -0500, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> Well I've been biting my nails for a while hoping for things to pull
> together a bit more, but it's just not happening.  We're coming to a

Hi Thomas, this was a well-needed post. Thanks.

> #1)  PubSub - This just has so much potential and power inherent to it,
> yet we stalled for a while.  Then we heard there was some sort of
> agreement, yet we haven't seen a new doc, jep, or anything really.  We
> need closure, or they need a vote to pick one or the other.

My understanding is that it was discussed at JabberConf.EU and stpeter was
going to give us a summary of the points that were talked about. I know he
is on holiday right now, so either we wait until he returns, or someone
else who was there could kindly fill us in? 

FWIW, I'm still hacking on mechanisms based on 0024, it's holding up well. 
There's potentially an extra attribute in the <subscribe/> tag that I might
suggest (I'm experimenting/thinking about it right now - it's in the area
of resources and endpoint receipt) but I'll see how it goes first, without
boring you all with the details. 

And my latest experiment also is based on 0024: 

> #2)  Browse/Disco - Similar but different.  Seems there might be a way
> to find a common ground, but there has been some tension about the
> creation of Disco.  Do we need a group hug and then mind melding time? 
> I don't know but it sure would be nice to figure that out =)

Tension? I didn't notice (well, a little bit, but hey, these are emotive
subjects. What do we need RL for? ;-) I never saw anything bad in Disco, 
apart from overlap with Browse. But that's always going to happen with 
progressive protocol development. So what's the deal?

> #3)  Encryption - Paul, still working on a new draft?
> #4)  Packet Headers - status update?
> #5)  i18n - another idle, any status?
> #6)  SASL - Should be going to vote shortly, since last call ends
> tomorrow.
> #7)  Improved semantics for offline msgs and msg storage - JEP 13
> touched on this, but it seemed to die away.  This is one of those
> selfish ones, but a lot more people seem interested in it recently as
> well.

I must've missed this one in my brain sabbatical. I'll have to read up 
on it. If it is what I think it's about, then I'm interested too; esp in
the areas of how mod_xml could be improved/changed, and offline store-n-
forward of IQs (and packets generally, selectively).


More information about the Standards mailing list