[Standards] certification etc.

Mridul mridul at sun.com
Tue Mar 20 15:16:29 UTC 2007


I agree with Stephen.
Compression is a nice to have feature with significant value, but there 
is no functionality addition - dont really think it must be part of 
basic or even intermediate im suite for that matter.
Also, it adds functionality which is mirror'ed to an extent by simply 
supporting tls compression.

Regards,
Mridul

Stephen Pendleton wrote:
> Stream compression for clients or servers? I just want to throw in an
> opinion that we don't want to load too many requirements or recommendations
> into the "Basic IM" suite since mobile clients really don't need (or can't
> handle due to environmental constraints) lots of features. I think
> compression is a nice to have feature, but not a basic one.
> 
> I think the current list in XEP-0073 is reasonable though as long as
> "recommended" doesn't become "required in order to get a link on xmpp.com".
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:16 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] certification etc.
> 
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>>> XEP-0073: Basic IM Protocol Suite
>>>           http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0073.html
>> Basic seems fine to me now. But we'll need to think about how Basic
>> interacts with the RFC revisions, which won't be published by the end of 
>> June.
> 
> Looking at the Draft and Final XEPs, I think we may want to make stream 
> compression (XEP-0138) recommended. Thoughts?
> 
> /psa
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list