[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0226 (Message Stanza Profiles)
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Nov 17 18:09:37 UTC 2009
On 11/16/09 9:19 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Nov 16 15:56:18 2009, Fabio Forno wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> >> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
>> stack or
>> >> to clarify an existing protocol?
>> > I'm going to be forced to assume that the answer here is "No", given
>> > there's been no response to the Last Call at all.
>> Indeed I sent a first attempt of review to the techreview list.
> Ooops. I seem to not be on that.
>> Basically it was positive (yes to 1,2,3, no to 4), I just think it
>> doesn't state well real purpose (or at least what I find useful): the
>> problem is not having overcomplicated stanzas to handle, but having
>> some well defined method to understand which part of the message is
>> the real payload, and which part is just a fallback (usually a body
>> explaining why something has failed)
> Right. I also think a primary purpose of this document is, or should be,
> some definitions of what these things are - so we know that we can say
> that a XEP-0258 security label is a "Metadata element, as defined in
> XEP-0226", or something - XEP-0258 almost does this, but making this
> more stable and explicit would seem sensible.
Yes, that is the gist of the Council discussion:
I think that makes sense, but I'm not sure when I'll have time to update
XEP-0226 along these lines (probably in the next week or two).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards