[Standards] Draft to Final
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 17 20:33:17 UTC 2007
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> A lot of these specs have seen quite radical change recently in
> comparison to the 'lifetime' of the spec.
If we don't try to push some of these forward, we never will. :)
Naturally we won't try to do that until the spec in question is mature
and has been widely implemented. Part of why I included certain specs is
to determine how mature people think they are.
> Particularly the PEP & CAPS
> based specs.
In fact PEP hasn't changed since last September, although the
documentation has changed. We should probably wait until is has been
more widely implemented before we try to push it (and pubsub) to Final.
That might be more than a year from now.
You're right that XEP-0115 has undergone radical changes recently, but
given the strong agreement that the changes were a good thing, it would
not surprise me to see wide implementation of the updated version so
that we could think about advancing it to Final in about a year.
> There are others which are fairly new (xmpp ping,
Ping is so small and straightforward, and already so widely implemented,
that I think advancing it to Final in ~6 months might be reasonable.
> pep, caps, etc), or
> lot of new changes have been added to them (pubsub, link local messaging).
I put pubsub and link-local in the ~12 month category. It's possible
they would be ready by then. Maybe longer.
What are the radical changes to link-local messaging?
> None of these newer changes have undergone rigorous testing or have much
> implementation experience.
That should happen in the next 6-12 months though.
> It might be a good idea to wait for a while before considering them for
> pushing to final.
Yes, probably at least 6 months and more like 12-18. But I think it's
good to start thinking about this now.
> Then we have oob, ibb, muc, chat state notification, privacy lists ..
> these have been fairly stable and have multiple interoperable
> implementations .. seem like good candidates for becoming final.
Agreed on all counts there except IBB (how widely implemented is it?)
and perhaps privacy lists -- though interop testing will tell the tale
on that one I think.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards