[Standards] XEP-0198 status

Joe Hildebrand joe.hildebrand at webex.com
Thu Feb 17 21:57:27 UTC 2011

Was it going to be more clear what to do with port info on the location

On 2/17/11 11:49 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

> <bump/>
> 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

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the Standards mailing list