[standards-jig] Re: [Foundation] NEW: Jabber 1.0 Protocol Suites (JEP-0073)

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Wed Mar 5 05:29:26 UTC 2003


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>This evening I wrote the first draft of a JEP that defines three Jabber
>protocol suites (Core, Basic, and Advanced). I feel strongly that such
>definitions are necessary in order to stabilize and clearly define the
>protocol, to enable efficient compliance testing, and to make it possible
>for the JSF to effectively market this thing we call Jabber. While this
>JEP is informational, it has fairly significant implications for many
>existing protocols as well as for several protocols under development, so
>I encourage you to read the JEP and sound off on the standards-jig list if
>you have questions or concerns. Essentially this JEP seeks to answer the
>perennial question "What is Jabber?", so hopefully the JEP will spark a
>fruitful conversation in the Jabber community. Join in the fun by reading
>the following URL (remember this is a first draft) and signing up for the
>standards-jig list if you're not already subscribed.
>
As an aside - how do you want to deal with the comments saying 'this 
feature should be in this category (instead of this other category)' ? I 
have several of those sorts of comments, but am trying to keep the 
emails as objective as possible, at least to start. ;-)

So to start - I do not believe we should be standardizing on 
informational JEPs without some sort of review period. In particular:
JEP-0049: Private XML Storage
JEP-0054: vcard-temp
JEP-0055: jabber:iq:search
JEP-0022: Message Events
We should either translate these into standards track jeps and go 
through the standard process, or create new JEPs to accomplish their 
functionality. Some of the informational drafts put forth by the 
standards-jig have known issues - they were proposed as informational in 
order to document the current state of affairs, with the hope that one 
day the functionality would be reevaluated and then standardized.

In the same vein, also should not require support for features which 
have not been through a standardization process by either by the JSF or 
the IETF, such as
jabber:iq:time, jabber:iq:version, jabber:x:roster, jabber:x:delay, and 
jabber:iq:register

And please keep in mind I've edited and re-edited this email for over an 
hour, because I really don't want to imply conformance levels are a bad 
thing, or make value judgements on any of these existing protocols here. 
I just want to voice a concern over standardizing conformance on 
nonstandardized features, specifically because the membership and 
technical council do not get to comment on informational JEPs other than 
comments on accuracy.

-David Waite




More information about the Standards mailing list