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

Jacek Konieczny jajcus at jajcus.net
Wed Aug 17 08:00:27 UTC 2005


On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:59:58PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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). 
[...]
> 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.

I don't see anything wrong with defining ACKs as a JEP. XMPP has the
<stream:feature/> element exactly for this purpose: extending XMPP
stream functionality. We have namespaces, so there is no reason to be
afraid of name conflicts. And Jabber Council is much faster at its job
then IETF. 

Jabber could be much more reliable now if Jabber Council accepted the
JEP instead of trying to be politically-correct and leaving that for
IETF. I am sure when the JEP is available it will be implemented very
soon. It is one of the features needed _very_ much (users are really not
happy with the messages lost) and quite easy to implement. We just need
a well-defined protocol and that means a JEP in the Jabber world.

We would never have the RFC3920 if XML streams, jabber:iq:roster, etc.
were not defined earlier. Now we have even better means to define new
protocols (Jabber Council) so why don't we use that?


Greets,
        Jacek



More information about the Standards mailing list