[Standards] SUMMARY: compliance levels

Boyd Fletcher boyd.fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Thu May 10 03:55:34 UTC 2007




On 5/8/07 5:26 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> This message attempts to summarize the recent thread about compliance
> levels. I see consensus on the following:
> 
> 1. The Basic levels address more generalized XMPP functionality whereas
> the Intermediate Client level includes features that are specific to IM
> and presence clients. This probably should be reflected in the name of
> the intermediate level ("XMPP Intermediate IM Client 2008" or whatever).
> 
> 2. We need an Intermediate Server level. This probably should include
> PEP (XEP-0163). It should also include the ability to support add-on
> components (whether internal or external) for things that are required
> by the Intermediate Chat Client level (e.g., MUC).
> 

I think from the users perspective MUC is far more important that PEP.


> 3. Start TLS in Basic. (In fact this is required by RFC 3920 so I don't
> understand the confusion.)
> 
> I don't see consensus (yet) on the following:
> 
> 1. Stream Compression (XEP-0138) in the Basic levels. (ISTM that this
> should not be necessary, since Transport Layer Security includes a
> compression option and there should be support for it in common SSL
> libraries.)

+1 on client and server


> 
> 2. JID Escaping (XEP-0106) in the Basic levels. (This seems like a good
> idea to me.)
> 
> 3. Removing Entity Capabilities from the Basic levels. (Lots of
> objections on the list, the main argument in favor is that there are
> some reputed security concerns w.r.t. poisoning, but IMHO if you follow
> the spec these are not very threatening. But the spec could be beefed up
> in this regard if desired.)
> 
> 4. Including communications blocking (XEP-0016 and XEP-0191) in the
> Intermediate levels. (This seems like a good idea to me.)
> 
> 5. Avatars. (Which approach?)
> 
> 6. vCards. (No major objections to date.)
> 
> 7. XMPP URIs. (What does this mean for clients? Just register the client
> as a helper app and off you go.)
> 
> 8. Bookmarks. (Introduces a dependency on iq:private and in any case I
> am not convinced that iq:private is the right place to store JIDs
> anyway, see [1].)
> 
> 9. File Transfer. (Which approach? XEP-0096? But it doesn't work well,
> NATs suck etc., use the non-existent Jingle FT? IMHO this belongs in the
> "XMPP Multimedia Client 2009" level...)
> 
> 10. MUC: all or only part for Intermediate? (An "Advanced IM Client"
> level might include all the room admin stuff.)

+1 for all of MUC on the intermediate server

I like the idea in the other emails about reduce functionality for
intermediate client however, I think most of the major XMPP clients and all
the XMPP servers are nearly 100% MUC compliant so does it really make much
difference?


> 
> /psa
> 
> [1] http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-March/014646.html
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list