[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Jul 29 18:07:14 UTC 2003

You may have noticed that JEPs 107 and 108 are Informational, not
Standards-Track. This was intentional. My strongly-held opinion is
extensions such as these are great, but they do not belong in the
standard protocol. Standards-Track JEPs should be foundational 
protocols that we require for compliance, such as disco, pubsub, 
and probably file transfer. It's great if you want to build cool
things on top of pubsub (as JEPs 107 and 108 do) or if you've 
thought of a nice protocol for vacation messages or roster maps
(JEPs 109 and 110 -- not picking on them, I just published them 
last night), but IMHO they should not be standards-track.

My rough and ready test is: if we're going to require a protocol 
for compliance testing, it needs to be standards-track. Otherwise, 
it should be informational. 

So I think all new JEPs should be informational unless the author can
provide a strong justification for making it standards-track.



Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Standards mailing list