[Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"
dave at cridland.net
Tue Dec 16 21:07:29 UTC 2014
On 16 Dec 2014 20:23, "Kurt Zeilenga" <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
> You have provided no suggestions to the authors of how they might take
change the ProtoXEP to address your objections.
Okay, I thought I had given the general actions I'd like to see, but I'll
The specification describes a very specific solution to a very specific
problem, in a way that matches neither the status quo of existing patterns
within XMPP, nor the common model and terms used elsewhere in the industry.
I would like to see this recast to be based around the standard industry
model and terms, with a view to ultimately allowing this model to be used
throughout XMPP. I have described this model in loose terms in my initial
email, and I'm happy to expand on this.
This isn't a problem with the spec in isolation, it's simply that the spec
is further exacerbating an architectural problem in XMPP as a whole, which
is not only making XMPP internally inconsistent, but isolating it within
It's unfortunate that I happen to be drawing the line on this spec, but
this isn't me being arbitrary or "shitty".
If you think that my job in council should not be to keep an eye on the big
picture, then I actually don't understand what you think my job is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards