[standards-jig] minutes from protocol gathering
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Apr 22 23:23:30 UTC 2003
We just finished a productive "protocol gathering" -- many thanks to
everyone who participated. Consider this email to be semi-official
meeting minutes and a summary of action items.
1. 3 of 4 old pubsub JEPs were retracted today. I will contact Tim
Carpenter to see if he wants to retract JEP-0040.
2. JEP-0013 (Flexible Offline Message Handling) requires a bit of work
on my part -- I need to make the node names opaque and check over a
few more aspects of the JEP, but it should be ready for Last Call by
the end of next week.
3. The other JEPs I'm working on (71, 73, 77, 78, 82) will be updated in
the next 10 days or so.
4. Rob Norris's JEPs on filtering (62 - 64) should be discussed some
more rather than being deferred. If you are interested in these JEPs,
please read them before next week's protocol gathering so we can
discuss them then.
5. JEP-0033 (Packet Headers) -- Joe Hildebrand to update disco support,
and remove agents and browse. Some discussion of whether the header
types supported should be managed by the Jabber Registrar rather than
specified in the JEP. We should discuss that after hildjj provides an
updated version (or now if you please). Also, are other header types
desirable (e.g., "importance")?
6. JEP-0068 (Field Standardization for Data Gathering) -- more examples
were requested. Examples good. :)
7. Much discussion of JEP-0050 (Ad-Hoc Commands) and its relation to
Data Gathering, including some hermeneutical analysis of JEP-0004.
I'm really not sure what the consensus was....
8. JEP-0070 and JEP-0079 are interesting and need to be discussed more
fully. Shall we add these to the agenda for next week?
9. JEP-0018 (Presence) -- it's still desirable to focus this solely on
invisible presence only and make it informational. No volunteers yet.
If you want to work on this, let me know.
10. JEP-0031 (Security Framework) -- consensus was to Defer this. I'll
verify this on the Council list and then change it accordingly.
I think that's it -- see you next week!
More information about the Standards