[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Thu Jul 31 19:44:08 UTC 2003


I still like my idea - allow creation of protocol 'notes', which are 
enhancement proposals by members which aren't intended to become 'core', 
things like an xml protocol for playing a game of 'go' online or the 
like. Then provide a way for multiple people to work on these protocols, 
something extremely similar to (if not exactly) jabberstudio.org.

I'd actually like to see this happen for core proposals as well, in 
addition to requiring at least a basic requirements doc before a core 
proposal is approved to begin.

-David Waite

Justin Kirby wrote:

>>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
>acceptable.
>
>Justin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>  
>





More information about the Standards mailing list