[Standards-JIG] httpbind example issue

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Feb 13 23:06:25 UTC 2006

Hash: SHA1

Well, JEP-0045 has been Draft since 2002 and I think it'll be time to
push it to Final in 2006. :-)

Jack, your proposed change to JEP-0124 seems sensible. Could you post
suggested XML for that example?


Ian Paterson wrote:
>>> Perhaps this could have been slightly more elegant, but does that
>>> matter enough to change it at this stage?
>> Isn't draft status mean that it's subject to change?
> Yes, "some changes are possible". But since "implementations are
> encouraged", IMHO, once a few implementations have been developed and
> put into production, it is both the author's and the council's
> responsability to ensure only important changes (or changes that won't
> affect existing installations) are introduced.
>> If the goal is that "it is done", perhaps we need to put this to the
>> council with the motion for last call, and move it along to Standard?
>> That said, we have made similar changes in the recent past,
>> which the council approved.  In my opinion, this change is on 
>> the same level as those, so I see no reason not to change it. 
>>  However, it sounds as if more people are implementing this, 
>> so I also think it's perhaps time to push it forward to the 
>> next stage.
> Yes quite a few implementations have been springing up.
> However, my feeling is that this JEP is still a long way from becoming
> 'Final'. The nice thing about the Draft stage is that it allows us to
> make changes that are deemed important - even if they affect existing
> installations. I hope only a few changes will be necessary, but I'm sure
> some will be - e.g., today's post from Peter Millard about limiting the
> size of RIDs.
> There are only five Final JEPs (arguably a good thing for now at least).
> JEP-0124 is not XMPP, and it is far more complex to implement (as
> recommended) than other JEPs. It documents a truly innovative approach
> to HTTP tunneling, so implementors are breaking totally new
> technological ground. The JEP can be expected to take longer than
> average to become Final.
> AFAIK, we have no successful interoperability experiences between
> applications created by different developers. However, I expect we will
> gain that experience during 2006.
> - Ian
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060213/faf8ee9b/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list