[Standards-JIG] Re: LAST CALL: JEP-0117 (Intermediate IM Protocol Suite)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 18 16:13:21 UTC 2005

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:38:03AM -0500, Nolan Eakins wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> | On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:18:14PM -0400, Hal Rottenberg wrote:
> |
> |>On 5/17/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> |>
> |>>Well, I think the default room type is a deployment decision, not
> |>>something that we specify in the JEP.
> |>
> |>But maybe you should put a SHOULD in there?
> |
> | Furthermore, if the JEP is going to tell deployers whether a room SHOULD
> | be persistent or non-persistent by default, then presumably it is also
> | correct for the JEP to weigh in on all the other options (discussion
> | logging etc.). But the appropriate settings will depend on the situation
> | (public service, private service, logging seen as an invasion of privacy
> | on the public Internet, logging required for regulatory compliance in
> | some corporate settings, etc.), so I think that's quite out of scope.
> |
> | Or so it seems to me.
> So are you arguing for bringing all of MUC and its dependencies into the
> intermediate suite? :-)

By no means. I am pointing out that, in general, specifications define 
what an implementation MUST/SHOULD/MAY implement, *not* what deployment
decisions an admin MUST/SHOULD/MAY make.

> Thinking about it, bringing data forms into the intermediate suite would
> be a good thing, especially the MUC use case for approving membership
> requests. Go ahead and bring in all of MUC.

Well, Data Forms (JEP-0004) is effectively included in the intermediate
protocol suite, since it is a dependency for JEP-0020 (support for
which is required by JEP-0096). But those are behind the scenes data
forms, not forms that are presented to an end user.


More information about the Standards mailing list