[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Feb 17 18:49:23 UTC 2011


Any feedback or objections?

On 2/11/11 1:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> OK folks, I've made a first attempt at updating the spec, including
> Dave's patch. The results are here:
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.2.html
> Please review and comment.
> (IMHO the document doesn't provide a super-clear explanation of what the
> protocol does and why it matters -- I'll try to add a paragraph like
> that to the introduction.)
> /psa
> On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the
>> status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly
>> come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198.
>> Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion
>> thread about this spec:
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html
>> I see two main points...
>> 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation
>> feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here:
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html
>> I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be
>> applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from
>> my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally.
>> 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule
>> (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example,
>> Matthew Wild wrote:
>>    I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based
>>    algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout
>>    handshake...
>> IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course
>> here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless
>> I'm missing something obvious.
>> Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198?
>> Peter

Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20110217/aafa0b38/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list