[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes 2015-04-29

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Apr 30 16:17:06 UTC 2015

On 30 April 2015 at 16:39, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:

> > 4) Top level non-stanza elements
> >
> > Flow requested that Council discuss whether it is acceptable for a XEP
> to introduce a new top-level non-stanza element. Consensus from the Council
> members present was that this was not verboten, and should be judged on a
> per-case basis. Further (interesting?) discussion can be found in the room
> logs.
> >

I agree that adding top-level elements shouldn't be forbidden; they're
extremely useful for manipulation and reporting of state relating to the
connection or stream.

CSI is the case in point - however it's worth nothing that while a careful
reading does tell you that a session resumed by 198 would be considered
"active", it does require a careful reading; an explicit statement might

> 6) Any other business
> >
> > Flow commented that he wanted progress made on MAM. No Council actions
> needed.

I'd like to see this as well - my understanding is we have a consensus to
switch back from the sentinel to an <iq/> result - what's the next steps
needed? Would the authors like some text and/or a patch?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150430/91cf049e/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list