[Standards] 301 feedback

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Jul 2 20:15:30 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Gunnar Hellstrom
<gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se> wrote:
> On 2013-07-02 20:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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?
>> 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.

This was what I meant - I'm aware that some of the optionalness may be
down to me having balked when I first saw this as a protoXEP and had
trouble with many things about it. Now I think the XEP is mostly solid
and much clearer and it doesn't seem to me that it would be
unreasonable for all of that table to require support (although
probably the 'wait' stuff needs to remain optional) in
implementations, and would aid interop.


More information about the Standards mailing list