[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Stanza Repeaters
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Mar 21 17:40:09 UTC 2008
Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
> Dave Cridland typeth:
> | Whether that's true or not, protocols do not make political or moral
> | statements, and nor should they. Protocols just enable what people
> | want to do, whether you agree with that or not. There's a name for
> Yes, and this protocol just happens to enable you to watch the presence
> of your contacts without revealing your own. I don't intend to say that
> neither the designers of XMPP or those of IMPP intentionally planned it
> that way, but that's the result.
Please keep your moralizing and psychologizing to yourself. Or shall we
start a list such as philosophy at xmpp.org?
> Using the existing subscription information isn't only the most
> efficient strategy concerning network traffic and scalability, it also
> improves transparency for the user, as she can rely upon being subscribed
> to this or that - not silently having been excluded.
> | If we consider a case where no privacy lists were in use, and if we
> Since pretty much everyone considers privacy lists a not so successful
They do? Evidence, please. I wrote XEP-0191 (Simple Communications
Blocking) because I thought developers found privacy lists to be too
complex, but when I really pushed the issue they said "oh no, really
privacy lists are fine and we've all implemented that protocol, so let's
move on already".
> I don't think IESG would object a lot if we were to say
> "We've been there, we wore that t-shirt, it didn't look good."
Do you have a special way to divine the thinking of the IESG? I suppose
you have written a lot of RFCs and have a deep understanding of how the
IETF works. Feel free to share your insights into standardization with
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards