[Standards] {Core|Advanced} {Client|Server} 2015

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Thu Jun 18 14:01:47 UTC 2015


What’s the bar for “core”?  I would think it at least mature Draft standard if not Full standard.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to add Carbons to core when it seems that there’s not consensus that it’s the best solution for any problem the majority of XMPP IM/MUC deployments are facing.

— Kurt

> On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net> wrote:
> 
> On 6/17/15 3:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 17 June 2015 at 20:52, Curtis King <cking at mumbo.ca
>> <mailto:cking at mumbo.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    > On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net <mailto:dave at cridland.net>> wrote:
>>    >
>>    > Folks,
>>    >
>>    > Many moons past, before the dawn of a couple of years ago, we had things like XEP-0302, which declared that - excitingly - advanced servers might want to implement PEP.
>>    >
>>    > I think that these days, any server should be doing PEP. I suspect we're nearing the point where we need to consider Carbons as a "Core", rather than "Advanced”.
>> 
>>    When was Carbons even listed as Advanced?
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah... I read that back and wondered what the hell I meant, sorry, that
>> was hopelessly unclear of me.
>> 
>> I meant to say that Carbons wasn't even on there before, whereas it's
>> now pretty much essential.
> 
> Agreed with respect to the technology. With respect to the process, the Carbons XEP is still Experimental. I think that it's not right to make a XEP part of a compliance suite if it's still Experimental. But that can be solved by moving the XEP forward on the standards track.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/




More information about the Standards mailing list