[Standards] Draft to Final
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 17 21:48:00 UTC 2007
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi Mridul!
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>> 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.
> The basic idea of pep has not changed for an year now, but the
> auto-create related issues, and corresponding changes to pubsub were
> thrashed out only recently ... and the need for another spec which can
> be used for private storage, etc.
> It is quite likely that as adoption grows we will have more discussion
> and clarifications required - on both pep and pubsub changes.
Quite possible, yes. But I still maintain that despite all the list
discussion, the resulting spec modifications were small.
>> 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.
> It is small, true but I am not sure of how many server's use it
> currently, or support it.
> I think because it was so small, lot of clients ended up adding it even
> before it was draft ... I am not very sure if most of the
> implementations use it 'properly' - that is, when to use it, how
> frequently to use it, etc.
> Slugging in a namespace handler and a thread to blindly send it to
> server is not the only idea :-)
Interop testing is our friend. :)
>>> pep, caps, etc), or
>>> lot of new changes have been added to them (pubsub, link local
>> 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?
> iirc there was quite a bit of discussion about discovery and related
> aspects, and changes made to it.
Again, lots of discussion, but what was the scope of the resulting
changes? Perhaps not as significant as you think:
But probably this one is more toward the 12-18 month side of the
> It is quite possible that as we look
> more into white boarding, there might be changes required to it in
> context of p2p editing ?
I don't think so. XEP-0174 is just the stream set-up. It's like the
equivalent of RFC 3920 but for use when you don't have a server. What
you do on top of that stream is up to you.
> My impression was that we dont have enough adoption, and so multiple
> implementations, which can unearth potential issues with this spec.
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/SalutInteroperability says there
are implementations in Adium, iChat, Gaim/Pidgin, and Gajim, as well as
the Salut library (OLPC project). But yes perhaps more examples would be
good (I'd love support in Psi, hint hint!). Some interop testing at a
future in-person meeting would be cool. FOSDEM 2008 perhaps? :)
>>> None of these newer changes have undergone rigorous testing or have much
>>> implementation experience.
>> That should happen in the next 6-12 months though.
> You are optimistic :-)
If I weren't optimistic I would have quit the Jabber project back in
2001 or so. ;-)
> It will be good if we have as rapid adoption !
> But more seriously, PEP & specs based on it add serious amount of value
> - so it will be good to standardize on them and deprecate the others
> which predated them (avatar being what I have been bugged with off late).
Yes, the Council plans to issue a Last Call regarding XEP-0084 soon.
>>> 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.
> Being in draft stage should be enough to start implementation with
> reasonable guarantees of stability - so yes, I agree with you that in
> 12-18 months we should definitely be able to commit some of the above to
>>> 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.
> Very true .. I know of only few clients and server which support ibb &
> privacy lists. But that is hardly because of lack of stability of specs
> ... it is similar to pubsub I guess, the 'harder' it is, the lower the
> adoption :-)
> (hmm, this does not make sense for ibb though - rate limiting penalties
> should be the cause there I guess : the iq based ibb should 'solve' that
> Another spec I forgot to mention was httpbind (xep 124 & 206) - Ian has
> managed to keep the spec remarkably stable inspite the seemingly large
> change to it 'recently'. Those two together have quite a bit of
> adoption, multiple interoperable implementations.
Ian and I have talked about potentially submitting XEP-0124 (and perhaps
XEP-0206) for standardization at the IETF. But it remains to be seen
whether we'll do that anytime soon. However, BOSH is not really specific
to XMPP now so it might make sense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards