[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jul 30 15:23:44 UTC 2003

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:29:06AM -0600, David Waite wrote:
> I think they should be called informational notes rather than JEPs 
> because the P stands for Proposal. Something which documents an 
> existing, deployed system is most certainly not a proposal :-)
> And while we are at it, I'd love it if only informational notes and JEPs 
> which are made 'active' are assigned numbers, and before that they have 
> an internet-draft document name and versioning. It would sure make it 
> easier to figure out what people are talking about ;-)

Hmm. I would say Jabber Enhancement Proposals are just that: proposals. My
take is we need a separate list of accepted protocols JEPs and call them
Jabber Standards[*]. With their own number.

It seems odd that people have to implement Proposals when they are accepted.
I'd rather see people implement Standards and having such a list makes it
less cluttered for 'outsiders': JEPs are what we are currently working on,
JSs are protocols we agreed on and everyone could/should use.

Also, JEPs should also be used to document other ideas to enhance Jabber,
non-protocol like. Call them informational. Like we had the JIG JEP and I'm
sure we could think of other such proposals.


[*] Don't bother going into the Jabber vs. XMPP debate. I am not interested
in the naming.

More information about the Standards mailing list