[Standards] XEP-0332 Last Call comment summary
dave at cridland.net
Wed Nov 5 15:42:24 UTC 2014
This is a summary of Last Call comments concerning XEP-0332, and is a
method of attempting to (re)stimulate discussion in order to get the XEP
moved from Experimental. It does not constitute a formal action of Council,
Board, or the XSF as a whole, nor set any kind of precedent - it results
from a discussion about how to get things moving and I (personally) took it
1) Summary of Council positions: "All present -1 due to outstanding LC
feedback and lack of positive LC comments."
This indicates that the Council felt that comments made during Last Call
have had no response or resolution, and since there were no comments in
favour of publication, the XEP remains in Proposed and does not advance to
Draft at this time. The details are in XEP-0001, §7 and §8 for those
wanting further information.
Note that the XEP has *not* moved to Rejected; that would require a
separate vote by Council.
2) The revision of the XEP in question is 0.3; note that there are comments
in the thread about the update to this revision which do not appear to be
a) Specialization of the "first candidate" is counter to Jingle. See Note2
3) Last Call comments included (but are not limited to):
a) Many respondents did not understand the requirement for the protocol. No
respondents were intending to implement.
b) A number of terms of art are introduced which are unique to this
document. For example, "XMPP datagram", "telegram", "friendship", and so on.
c) Available mechanism choices: IBB may be better to be part of Jingle, and
SI might be better replaced by Jingle FT.
d) Support references an earlier RFC for HTTP/1.1. Support for other
versions (particular 2.0) is not specified.
e) Per-request flags used as capability signalling.
f) URI syntax seems incorrect WRT userinfo. In addition, use of a distinct
scheme seems inadvisable.
g) Registration template assigns the XEP author as change controller.
There are three respondents in the Last Call, and there are no replies by
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards