[Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call ("Proposed")
kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Aug 12 14:50:18 UTC 2015
On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu> wrote:
> On August 12, 2015 3:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>> The thread is moving somewhat away from Carbons Last Calls, but this is
>> all related so I won’t feel too guilty. I have two opinions here:
>> 2) Carbons will need some changes in the (hopefully near) future once
>> the pubsub/account stuff is specced/we have deployment experience. I
>> believe this means that going to Draft now wouldn’t be appropriate, as
>> knowing there will be backwards-incompatible changes is at odds with
>> the Draft requirement of avoiding such things where possible.
> * Does this mean you'd vote -1 if Carbons remains mostly as-is for now?
For Draft, yes, which is very different to saying I think it has no merit, or that I don’t think an appropriate version should go to Draft. Voting something to Draft when I think it’s likely to need further changes seems inconsistent with xep1.
> * How do you feel such backwards incompatible changes would work out in practice? I do feel implementors take a risk in putting experimental specs in production, but also see the high-profile nature of this work and the bigger context with other IM systems.
I think they’d work out as a new namespace, but I’m not sure. If we could get the other pieces in place we’d be able to see the bigger picture and be more confident in these things. I think that MUC2 is not a prerequisite part of these other pieces for Carbons to be able to advance, but defining how it interacts with Pubsub/Account seems necessary. It also seems necessary to include type=normal (I think we can get away from type=groupchat, thankfully, cleanly in the MUC2/PubsubAccount approach).
> * Could your envisioned changes be add-on instead? I.e. is there a chance of future proofing this (now)?
Possibly, but I don’t think we’ve got the picture firm enough yet.
More information about the Standards