[Standards] 301 feedback

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Jul 2 20:17:45 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/2/13 2:15 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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:
>>> 
>>> -----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?
>>> 
>>> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense to me.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR0zVpAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pNWAP+wSuMzlb9+q1JwxtRky/DPkh
PJXmUy0UlVUmBcSSEbnggBh3f8V/5uMRWvmwZScJ1fA197JFkttPUQsvgdygOBcF
fG9ZFJsf3G7B5rLX0tGSvlpU+B0J0r1LenCpGcsfJpgy0pkCiloEzk141MwGacFv
bFPqXTGrOLfphS/jLJfd7x//R6vUrw23bXUHne34GKUmErSheLmZ5orOG2uGFrme
XgnueFp3Yk19tWlt/FVWplzhL0yVWIAt3J5lbBv9BCqFEe2uWCSe+8CItlvuIwSZ
wO7BNC97I1YTa2aag8+gzgUWeLpH+lWz45s5UgwIgQRdO/OiBpH27W65yHSPwTWF
Ru8VvqxH9ZuWlRmNf9xgOq3/qaE0eCZm/dCL/czTbYgl3286nP2B8Jqd7wyRD4LJ
pPbaOLV7Z00h1L+WrqLPHjJ+s0K//R7Fv9RvJGTFcFpz+0NGVNKjOGxyntNAlT6z
BX1RmqGjR8Dv9+G9VMKC29Ko3OHYGiBZ05F+M6ZzCPIhBpVZVfLJAbOff7Jf7r8c
C0HhPbDitofTnznja3enRTHA4FXUpdvQRMpxuWGg/Sk7N04hUPyNjYU+Z7tPE6ok
sf5ZAFSB5yix3beFQ6aZaWKpPnUzuwWfRv5Jl3PDXNXozVS7NVsFcncoFbYF024p
PBdIkIXiu8Y/JQ+FzddL
=BWPa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list