[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed Jul 30 00:45:06 UTC 2003


Joe,

> JEP 25 (HTTP polling) is a good example of this.  We implemented this as a
> quick solution here at Jabber, Inc., and documented the protocol so that
> other clients had a shot at being able to connect.  There was a security
> issue, which we dealt with by a careful release strategy, and updated the
> doc.  There still needs to be a standards-track replacement to this, so that
> we can have full community consensus on the approach.  (aside: I've actually
> been thinking about this recently, and hope to be able to put together a
> draft soon)

This is exactly what I have a problem with. The fact that that the JEP 
was published on the JSF website as an official document means that it 
is now a de-facto standard for anyone wanting to create HTTP polling. In 
some cases, informational JEP's might be great and everyone will be 
happy. In other cases, the JEP's may be quite bad. When they are bad, 
we're kind of screwed because there is no process to improve them before 
everyone sees them on the JSF website and implements them as a "standard".

What if just gave what we're calling informational JEP's a new name, 
their own numbering scheme, and new place on the JSF website? That still 
lets people document protocols they've created while not providing 
confusion over what is actually a standard.

Regards,
Matt





More information about the Standards mailing list