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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 17 20:02:37 UTC 2005


Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:

> As a general question: is there anything that would prevent a JEP from  
> being "folded" into the RFC process? (Server Based Privacy comes to 
> mind  (what was that.. 0016?))

No, there is not. However, all the JEPs that have been folded into the 
RFC process pre-dated the XMPP WG (JEPs 0016, 0029, 0034, 0035). Now 
there exists a better venue for such discussions, IMHO.

Also, RFC style is quite different from JEP style -- not just the native 
format (TXT or RFC2629 for Internet-Drafts vs. HTML-like XML for JEPs), 
but more importantly the writing style and level of detail expected 
(RFCs are much more formal). It seems best to me that those who want to 
change the RFCs do so in Internet-Draft format so that the changes can 
be published as RFCs or folded into rfc3920bis/rfc3921bis with a minimum 
of effort when the time comes.

> Just how closely is the relationship between XMPP and it's transport 
> layer  defined? Ian had some comments on this but I'm having trouble 
> finding  those defined in rfc3920. If it's currently undefined, then 
> should it even  expected, let alone required, that there is 100% 
> realiability? How "niche"  is the use case for it?

Good questions.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml


More information about the Standards mailing list