[standards-jig] IBB: Making it all "go"

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Apr 9 18:45:32 UTC 2003

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:

> I hate to wreck the party, but as much as I like these latest ideas, I think 
> we may want to go back to just plain <iq> with wait-for-result.  Sure, this 
> has the downside of extra turn-around time per packet, but at least it is 
> issue-free (no counters, no delivery problems).

Justin, the consensus of the list is that using message is a superior
technical solution. The point of this list is to reach consensus on
protocols. If you do not like the list consensus, that is your
prerogative. However, it is also the prerogative of another community
member to write a competing JEP that incorporates the consensus
solution, and of the Council to approve that JEP rather than yours. You
have been down this path before when Dave Smith wrote JEP-0065 because
you would not change JEP-0046. Now JEP-0065 is one vote away from
Council approval whereas JEP-0046 will be rejected by the Council when
it has a chance to vote on it. You are free to pursue the same strategy
with regard to JEP-0047, but I would not advise it, because the Council 
will advance a proposal that has community consensus, and such a
proposal will emerge whether you author it or not. In particular, I am
most happy to author such a proposal myself.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Standards mailing list