[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Mon May 7 19:09:43 UTC 2007

On Monday 07 May 2007 11:54 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 wrote:
> > Perhaps that is too strict of a definition of a server. Users don't
> > care how muc is implemented just so long as their "xmpp server"
> > supports it. So if you look at server more as an entity not as a
> > single piece of software then it makes sense to mandate muc for
> > intermediate server especially  since intermediate client requires
> > muc.
> Implementation is different from deployment. Compliance levels are for
> software implementations, not service deployments.

Hmm, but can't just about anything be componentized?  How would a MUC module 
be distinct from, say, a StartTLS module in terms of compliancy?

Maybe if XEP-45 were part of the intermediate server requirements, then a 
compliancy test would be performed not against jabberd14 alone, but against 
jabberd14 + mu-conference.  Compliancy would refer to the 
entire "implementation" blob.  Deployments could leave out mu-conference.

Just thinking out loud.


More information about the Standards mailing list