[Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon May 14 21:22:31 UTC 2007

Alex Mauer wrote:
> 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.

Not every server deployment is connected to the Internet.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070514/070b2392/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list