[Standards-JIG] Re: What happened to the ACK proposal?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Aug 16 21:59:58 UTC 2005

Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:

>> Assuming this is true, then the case for XMPP ACK is very compelling
>> (the problem won't go away even if people upgrade their TCP stacks). Why
>> didn't this point carry the argument last time?
> Well, it was mentioned both before and after JEP-ACK was rejected.

The stanza acknowledgements proposal was not rejected -- it was never 
even accepted as a JEP ("rejected" has a particular meaning in the JSF's 
standards process, see JEP-0001). The sense of the Council at that time 
was that if stanza acknowledgements are added to XMPP, they should be 
defined in the specification that defines XML stanzas, namely RFC 3920 
or its replacement (and RFC 3920 *will* be superseded by rfc3920bis when 
we pursue advancement of the XMPP RFCs from Proposed to Draft).

I don't have an objection to pursuing this discussion in any forum 
people would like to choose and iterating over a proposal to add stanza 
acknowledgements to XMPP (probably in rfc3920bis), but I do have an 
objection to publishing a JEP about this because the IETF is the right 
place for this to happen eventually (and since I'm going to be the 
editor of rfc3920bis, I don't particularly want to translate JEP-speak 
into RFC-speak). If someone can come up with a tight definition of 
stanza acknowledgements that can be slotted into rfc3920bis, I'm all for 
it -- start with a section justifying the existence of stanza acks, then 
write a section of pithy, clear, RFC-ready text defining stanza acks 
that can become one section of rfc3920bis. Heck, even feel free to 
submit an Internet-Draft about it (the IETF has an open standards 
process). But I don't think doing this in the JEP series is the right 
way to move forward, and the Council didn't think so either last time it 
was asked.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Standards mailing list