[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060's Draft status. Was: What does 'Draft' status mean?

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jan 11 13:45:02 UTC 2006

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:42:20PM -0800, Chris Mullins wrote:
> I have a question about the motivation behind changing pubsub. 
> In early to mid 2005, I suggested a number of changes to pubsub, some
> minor, some major. I was slapped down at the time with:
> [PGM - Wed, 23 Feb 2005]
> > These kinds of changes should be done BEFORE the draft status is
> > reached. Draft status tells implementors that stuff should not
> > really change that much. There are probably more implementations of
> > pubsub than you realize.
> ... and that conversation degenerated into "It's too late to make
> changes to this JEP. Implement it as is." Which I did.
> Now, nearly a year later, (and after implementing the existing JEP
> 60), I see:
> > This is a major revision, just about every line in the spec has been
> > touched, and the changelog is long

First off. I haven't actually read the whole JEP again, yet, but looking
at the changelog I wouldn't say this is a major overhaul in
functionality. I see some consistency stuff fixed and configuration and
subscription options added.

I don't think it actually changes much for my implementation besides
some more sane error reporting. Does that hold for your implementation,

> Now, the changes to pubsub look great. I'm not looking to debate the
> changes. In fact, quite the opposite - I love that the JEP is being
> updated.

Me too, it could certainly use a face lift in readability, so an
overhaul in that sense is more than welcome to me.

> What I want to know is what changed between then and now? More time
> has passed. There is at least one more working implementation [mine].
> It seems as if the argument that PGM put forth would be even more true
> now than before. 
> Specifically, what policies should we have with regards to Draft
> status moving forward? Is the current PubSub JEP (which is draft, but
> obviously now in flux) in a state such that I should rebusmit the the
> various suggestions I made last year?

If the changes are really touching existing implementations, I think
this is up for debate. You (and others) certainly have a point if that
is the case.

In any case, what I hear from people wanting to start using JEP-0060 is
that the document (at least up to version 1.7) is immense and hard to
get through. This is a pity because the basic operations are actually
not so hard. Things like configuration options, subscription options and
node collections make it more difficult and I wish we could find a way
to remedy this.

I suppose a series of pubsub tutorials would be really useful. When
things quiet down around my new-bought house I want to seriously reserve
some time for that.

Note that I didn't answer the general question about what 'Draft' status
means. We may have jumped the gun earlier for JEP-0060, but I really
want to get a pubsub specification fixed up so that we can actually move
it towards 'Active'. I suppose you could say that we gained (some) experience
and that does allow us to fix up things.

I personally still kind of dislike the subscription/affiliation mixing
up in various parts of the specification, but didn't push that (much).
Chris: could you briefly mention the changes you'd want? No promises,
but I'd like a complete picture.



More information about the Standards mailing list