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

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Wed Apr 9 20:17:27 UTC 2003


Whoa, there.

We're still discussing.  I'm fully aware that the resulting protocol will be 
based around community consensus, that goes without saying.  But I think it 
is premature to say that we have consensus right now.  There has only been 
two days worth of recent IBB discussion, with the 'issues' surfacing only 
yesterday.  Even as the JEP author, I feel I should be able to contribute my 
opinion to the discussion like anyone else, without receiving a 
warning/threat message from you.

Just because I didn't update the JEP on Monday to reflect the idea of using 
<message> does not mean I am against it.  Had I done so, and then voiced my 
opinion about <iq> yesterday, I wouldn't change it back immediately either.  
What I say on the list is never 'the final word', only input to the 
discussion, and I prefer to only alter the JEP when a topic has settled (and 
you and I both know that a JSF topic does not get settled in two days).

Of course, if you don't agree, you may go right ahead with another JEP.  
Though, I will save you the trouble by offering JEP-0047 for you to take 
over, since I want you to do that eventually anyway.

-Justin

On Wednesday 09 April 2003 11:45 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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



More information about the Standards mailing list