[Standards] NEW: XEP-0279 (Server IP Check)

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 8 16:18:11 UTC 2010


On 8 March 2010 15:52, Tomasz Sterna <tomek at xiaoka.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2010-03-08, pon o godzinie 14:56 +0100, Remko Tronçon pisze:
>> > The clean separation of RFC 3920 and RFC 3921 allows this.
>> > XEP-0279 breaks this and causes tight coupling of these layers.
>>
>> On the other hand, if your server implementation has a hard time
>> figuring it out, don't support it.
>
> I always thought that the Standards JIG was created to come up with the
> best protocols possible through exchange of technical arguments. So
> called "meritocracy".
>
> "If you don't like it, then don't use it." is not a technical argument.
>

Agreed, I don't pretend it to be - but my argument wasn't quite that.
It was "if you can't implement it, don't". From what you described it
sounds like you don't have access to the client's IP address - which
means without changing that you could never implement a XEP like this.

> I pointed a deficiency in the tight coupling approach. This is not an
> immediate danger, but a possibility of hurting us in the future.
>

How would you propose to do it without "tight coupling"?

>
> On the other hand, not every XMPP protocol extension needs to be blessed
> by XSF and published as XEP. Google has no problems with adding own
> extensions to the protocol without asking us for acceptance.
>

Indeed, but going through the XSF is preferable.

>
> Dnia 2010-03-08, pon o godzinie 15:10 +0000, Matthew Wild pisze:
>> Yay, I'm not alone in thinking that each implementation need not
>> support *every* published XEP :)
>
> Unfortunately this point of view is not shared by software users.

Tell me about it (I regularly get asked if we support AMP).

> They tend to compare implementations by counting features.
> This leads to a race of implementing every possible XEP, no matter how
> silly or useless the idea is.
>

Such is life.

Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list