[Standards] XEP-0198 minor enhancement

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Sat May 30 08:54:01 UTC 2015

On 30 May 2015 at 08:33, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:

> * Steffen Larsen <zooldk at gmail.com> [2015-05-30 08:37]:
> > No, I would go for a version bump, because it could break some clients.
> A version bump, on the other hand, would break all clients. Some clients
> haven't yet implemented the sm:2 to sm:3 bump, and implementing
> different versions of the protocol in parallel is not always trivial.
In fairness, a version bump is only problematic because of inertia and
lethargy, not because of any real difficulty, especially where the two
versions are identical in practice (as with sm:2 and sm:3). It does
introduce a delay in implementation, but then, clients supporting sm:3
wouldn't be supporting sm:3+h anyway. The question is really whether we
want servers to have to support sm:2, sm:3, and a new sm:4 all of which are
virtually identical.

> +1 for the new feature.
> -1 for the version bump.
FTR, I would be +1 on the feature obviously, but I'm ambivalent to the
version bump. I'd simply like to have the discussion so that Council can
advise the Registrar properly.

> Georg
> --
> || http://op-co.de ++  GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N  ++
> || gpg: 0x962FD2DE ||  o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+  ||
> || Ge0rG: euIRCnet ||  X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y?   ||
> ++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150530/dc652156/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list