[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Mon May 14 21:15:44 UTC 2007

JD Conley wrote:
> Historically MUC has been a component. More recently, it is just another
> feature that bundle with their core server. Of course, it CAN be another
> component and is likely implemented that way. However, that's completely
> beside the point. In an XMPP IM environment people have grown accustomed
> to MUC. Whether you implement it in your server or provide a third party
> component that implements it, you must have it to be compliant!

So any server that provides s2s is compliant, since it's possible to use
that s2s support to communicate with (e.g.) conference.jabber.org.

Given that s2s support is part of RFC3920 and therefore the basic server
spec, specifying MUC support seems redundant for an intermediate server.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070514/4984d379/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list