[Standards] 301 feedback
gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se
Tue Jul 2 18:45:30 UTC 2013
On 2013-07-02 20:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 7/2/13 11:46 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk
>> <mailto:kevin at kismith.co.uk>> wrote:
>> 4.2.2 - I'm aware than we've had debates in the past about how
>> much needs to be MTI. As things currently stand, the XEP is fairly
>> clear and straightforward, and I wonder if making all of these MTI
>> would be
> MTI = "Mandatory to Implement"
> I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Kev might be
> wondering why guidelines that seem implementation-specific are
> mandated in the specification, since it could be argued that they are
> not critical from a protocol perspective and relate more to user
> experience than to network communication.
I have another set of words to put in Kev's mouth.
I think Kev meant that all shall be required to support.
In a straightforward protocol, having options just increases risks for
malfunctions and interop problems.
On recipient side it might be a good idea, but mandating support on
sender side does not make sense.
Some specific applications simply do not need to send all these.
I hope Kev can explain now which interpretation was right.
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards