[Standards] Fwd: XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond]

Mark Rejhon markybox at gmail.com
Tue Jul 2 21:02:33 UTC 2013

Sending to the list, seems like one reply got off-list:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Rejhon <markybox at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond]
To: kevin at kismith.co.uk

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
> The point I was making wasn't concerned so much where it was (although
> it seems I was torn about this a year ago, as well :)), but that it
> needs to be normative - opinions differ on whether that means things
> need to be in different bits of the XEP. I think just using 2119
> language is probably fine.

There is no normative language beyond Section 5 of XEP-0301 -- This is
intentional to make XEP-0301 protocol simpler by keeping normatives
out of "Implementation Notes"

So the simple change of adding RFC2119, creates this cascading requirement.
So I see possible outcomes:

1. Leave as-is
2. Or add normative where it is (creating the only normative in
"Implementation Notes".  Ugh.)
3. Or the XEP-0085 approach.  Create a new section located somewhere
above "Implementation Notes"; similiar to 5.1 and 5.5 of XEP-0085

More information about the Standards mailing list