[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Tue Sep 9 16:49:53 UTC 2008


first of all: sounds like a good idea. But reding this I got some
questions I had before:

Dave Cridland wrote:
> We currently create new protocols with a "urn:xmpp:tmp:protoname"
> namespace. This is useful to avoid collisions, as well as avoiding
> incompatible implementations in the wild.
> When they pass a certain maturity level, they become
> "urn:xmpp:protoname". This is great, but we don't do this until they
> pass a maturity level which is often hard to judge without
> implementation experience.

First question: what implementations are out there for a specific XEP?
IMHO that is important when coding stuff. Some code only requires
client to client communication, I can test that against my one
implementation at the beginning. But you wrote about XEP-0198 and that
is more complicated. IMHO it is a MUST HAVE extension and I will
implement it as soon as I can, but I have no server to test it
with. And the same is true for server developer: they have no
client. I guess this is one important reason why many XEPs have no
implementation: server developer see no need on client side and
clients have no server to test it with.

As a first step it would be nice to have a list of implementations
that support a specific XEP. A second step would maybe some inter-op
testing. There are two at the summit, but I guess that is not enough.


With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a
good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be
dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.
        -- RFC 1925

More information about the Standards mailing list