[Standards] Draft to Final

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 17 20:16:17 UTC 2007

Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 wrote:
> I agree. We have gotten some heat in goverment circles about the
> draft status of xep45 and its dependencies.
> I assume if we make a xep final that all of its dependencies must be
> final?

That seems like the right approach.

Some of the existing dependencies for XEP-0045 are Informational (i.e.,
they simply provide a "profile" of an existing standard). Examples
include XEP-0068, XEP-0082, and XEP-0128. However, in the interest of
reducing confusion we might want to make those Standards Track, because
the Informational type seems to confuse people.

> How are going to make changes to a final xep in the future? 

As we do now. :)


> Would it
> be a number like they do in ietf? Personnally I thank that is
> confusing.

Unlike the IETF (which still treats RFCs as paper documents in a way),
we edit in place, which means that we incorporate errata and corrections
without issuing a new document number. But all such changes must be
discussed on this list and formally approved by the XMPP Council (in
fact that is true of Draft specs as well).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070817/9dc00bbe/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list