[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Mridul Muralidharan mridul at sun.com
Mon May 14 18:44:43 UTC 2007

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>>>>> maybe I’m missing something but I haven’t seen a written 
>>>>> Intermediate Server 2008 spec.
>>>> Maybe that's because it hasn't been written yet.
>>>> I'll write a rough draft of that spec and update the other specs 
>>>> before the next Council meeting (May 16).
>>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/int-server-2008.html
>> Why is component protocol required ?
>> I thought it was historical and informational ...
> Would it help to change it to Standards Track? There has been talk about 
> working on a new component protocol but the existing one is very widely 
> implemented and deployed, and is the only standard way to connect 
> external components to servers.
> Peter

It is used, true - but is there any reason why a intermediate compliant 
server should support it ?
For example, pubsub/muc/jud/something_else could be implemented within 
the server without requiring external components.

The component protocol has been extended with proprietary extensions for 
all sorts of purposes and other than the basic initialization as defined 
by 114 and gateway registeration as defined by 100 (since they are 
usually components) most of the other functionality is proprietary : how 
useful is it to have it in intermediate level ?

For the record, we do support it :) just wondering whether intermediate 
suite will gain anything by having this supported ... could be a "nice 
to have" in advanced suite ?


More information about the Standards mailing list