[Standards] XEP-0332 Last Call comment summary
christian.schudt at gmx.de
Wed Nov 5 17:41:58 UTC 2014
I follow 3a). Generally the whole document is hard to understand for me.
Reasons for that are:
1. The introduction and motivation is written very abstract and it's hard to grasp the intent.
It could use some friendly "How it works" section, similar to other XEPs.
2. Some terminology (like "XML telegram") is confusing.
3. It feels like the reader has to (deeply?) understand HTTP first, before he can understand (or comment on) XEP-332.
4. It has many references to other specifications, which you should understand first (XEP-0049, XEP-0137, XEP-0166, XEP-0131, SOAP, REST, Turtle, RDF, Sparql, some RFCs), although some are only examples.
5. Some elements like ibb, sipub, jingle feel odd. Can't they be put into the 'xml' element?
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 05. November 2014 um 16:42 Uhr
Von: "Dave Cridland" <dave at cridland.net>
An: "XMPP Standards" <standards at xmpp.org>
Betreff: [Standards] XEP-0332 Last Call comment summary
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 on.
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 answered:
a) Specialization of the "first candidate" is counter to Jingle. See Note2 of §4.2.7
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 the author.
More information about the Standards