[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu Jul 31 19:45:19 UTC 2003

> However, throwing all new proposals into Informational is simply not
> acceptable.

Amen! :) All we really need to do is build out other classifications of 
JEP's besides "core". It shouldn't be a lot of work or a big deal and it 
will let us have a real standards process around things other than just 
core protocols.

The main reason I'm personally interested in this topic is that we're 
preparing to submit a fairly extensive JEP on workgroups (for live 
support). It's obviously not something that will ever be part of core 
but we still want to take it through a standards process rather than 
just asserting "this is the way we do it" through an informational JEP. 
I can imagine that there will be further JEP's around support processes 
in IM as other vendors get involved.

So, a question to answer is whether the JSF is prepared to take on other 
XMPP extension standardization efforts besides the core extensions (what 
a lot of people call "Jabber"). Having classifications of standards 
would fit well with some other organizations. As an example, the JCP 
(http://www.jcp.org) shepards all Java standardization efforts. There 
are some pretty specific sub-groups, such as JAIN for the "integrated 
networks" industry as well as general classfications such as what client 
side Java is and what is enterprise Java.


P.S. As a point of interest, there are already several standard Java 
API's in development for SIMPLE (something I find fairly scary for XMPP):


The list of companies working on those standards includes Cingular 
Wireless, Ericsson, IBM, Motorola, Oracle, Panasonic, Sun Microsystems, 
and Telcordia.

More information about the Standards mailing list