[standards-jig] Re: [Council] Resolving the file transfer debate

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Mon Jun 30 23:57:12 UTC 2003

I can't reply to the Council list as far as I know, so I'll reply here.

On Monday 30 June 2003 11:53 am, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> There is one issue I need to bring up though, and that's JEP-52.  If
> Justin resubmits the old 52 to replace the current one I'm going to be
> very upset.  The current 52 was created _with_ Justin and he gave his
> stamp of approval on the 52 number.  I made sure to ask him about that
> many times.  He's even listed as an author.  Plus I think it's dumb
> because 95/96 deprecate/retract 52. 95/96 are basically the evolution of
> 52, and almost used the 52 number.

Well, I have not submitted it because I felt I should talk with you and 
Matthew first before replacing the current JEP.  However, I'm sure you can 
understand why I would update it.

Here is the history of Jabber neo-FT:

1) I press JEP-41 and ask for council opinion.
2) temas is not satisfied, and decides we don't need it.
3) We collaborate together on JEP-52 to remove the JEP-41 dependency.
4) I'm not happy with the result, mainly because we wouldn't be able to re-use 
the stream negotiation protocol for non-FT applications.
5) We reach consensus that a generic negotiation protocol _is_ needed.
6) temas offers me ideas to put into 41 to make it satisfactory.  I am unable 
to successfully implement them without breaking features.
7) temas goes to create JEP-95 (to supercede 41), and asks for my input.
8) I'm not satisfied, and offer changes that would make it as capable as 41.  
temas refuses.
9) temas indicates intent to motion JEP-95
10) Since I don't find JEP-95 satisfactory, and I assume this won't change, I 
go back and finalize JEP-41.
11) Oops, except JEP-52 is broken from our earlier collaboration, and is not 
compatible with 41 anymore.

Thus, in the interest of those that would like JEP-41 to succeed, I had to 
restore JEP-52.  This should be logical, and since you're not using it 
anymore I don't see where the problem is.  May I update it?

It is here, for those that wish to read it:


More information about the Standards mailing list