[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Justin Kirby justin at openaether.org
Thu Jul 31 19:22:09 UTC 2003

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

This makes no sense what so ever.

An informational jep is: "an existing protocol in use within the Jabber
community without proposing that it be added to the standard protocol,
or provides information related to the functioning of the JSF"

So you are saying that the vast majority of extensions to jabber should
take place outside of the community to create an *existing* protocol.
And then submitted as a "this is how we do X".

While I agree that not every new jep should be *core*. I also do not
think all new extensions should be thrown out into the realm of
informational.  The obvious solution to the problem is to create a new
type of jep. Call it Extension.

This would allow for new proposals to be kept from the hodge podge mess
of informational and also make it very clear that the new proposal is
not meant to be part of the core protocol.

Another solution is to redefine Informational to include community
developed jeps that have gone through the process defined in standards,
but not considered core. This will probably have the side affect of
making Informational too ambiguous and not as clear as it is now.

However, throwing all new proposals into Informational is simply not


More information about the Standards mailing list