[standards-jig] Re: [Council] Resolving the file transfer debate

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Tue Jul 1 02:23:37 UTC 2003

How about we just retract it and you use a new number?


On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 18:57, Justin Karneges wrote:
> I can't reply to the Council list as far as I know, so I'll reply here.
> On Monday 30 June 2003 11:53 am, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> > There is one issue I need to bring up though, and that's JEP-52.  If
> > Justin resubmits the old 52 to replace the current one I'm going to be
> > very upset.  The current 52 was created _with_ Justin and he gave his
> > stamp of approval on the 52 number.  I made sure to ask him about that
> > many times.  He's even listed as an author.  Plus I think it's dumb
> > because 95/96 deprecate/retract 52. 95/96 are basically the evolution of
> > 52, and almost used the 52 number.
> Well, I have not submitted it because I felt I should talk with you and 
> Matthew first before replacing the current JEP.  However, I'm sure you can 
> understand why I would update it.
> Here is the history of Jabber neo-FT:
> 1) I press JEP-41 and ask for council opinion.
> 2) temas is not satisfied, and decides we don't need it.
> 3) We collaborate together on JEP-52 to remove the JEP-41 dependency.
> 4) I'm not happy with the result, mainly because we wouldn't be able to re-use 
> the stream negotiation protocol for non-FT applications.
> 5) We reach consensus that a generic negotiation protocol _is_ needed.
> 6) temas offers me ideas to put into 41 to make it satisfactory.  I am unable 
> to successfully implement them without breaking features.
> 7) temas goes to create JEP-95 (to supercede 41), and asks for my input.
> 8) I'm not satisfied, and offer changes that would make it as capable as 41.  
> temas refuses.
> 9) temas indicates intent to motion JEP-95
> 10) Since I don't find JEP-95 satisfactory, and I assume this won't change, I 
> go back and finalize JEP-41.
> 11) Oops, except JEP-52 is broken from our earlier collaboration, and is not 
> compatible with 41 anymore.
> Thus, in the interest of those that would like JEP-41 to succeed, I had to 
> restore JEP-52.  This should be logical, and since you're not using it 
> anymore I don't see where the problem is.  May I update it?
> It is here, for those that wish to read it:
>   http://www.affinix.com/~justin/jep-filexfer.html
> -Justin
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list