[Standards] [Council] 2016-07-20 Council Meeting

Stefan Strigler stefan.strigler at gmail.com
Fri Aug 5 19:13:23 UTC 2016

Some random thoughts on this discussion from an observer: From a purely
technical point of view I was like "never make this part of 0045, please".
But I think this is what we always got wrong. Not seeing XMPP also as a
whole thing. We know what it is in reality but from a theoretical point of
view it's just the sum of independent little pieces that /might/ add up or
not. But we all know, they are meant to add up. And it only makes sense if
they do. We should continue to embrace that idea a lot more. To point out
the intended way more clearly and not focus on possible deviations that

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:27 PM Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com>

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Holger Weiß <holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> wrote:
>> I'd be interested in feedback on this.  Personally, I'd still prefer
>> referring to MAM, as I think the client should to be fully aware of the
>> implications of enabling that option, especially in private rooms.  If
>> we ever come up with another archiving XEP that supports XEP-0045,
>> chances are the archiving semantics and access rules will be different.
>> And it should be no problem for clients supporting future XEPs to use
>> new MUC configuration options if necessary.
>> However, if others prefer "roomconfig_enablearchiving", I'll update my
>> PR¹ accordingly.
> I changed my mind, use roomconfig_enablemam or whatever.
>> > So what's the way forward?  Shall I provide an updated PR against
>> > XEP-0045, or against XEP-0313, or something else (e.g., others suggested
>> > putting all XEP-0045 configuration options into a separate registrar's
>> > list)?
>> While I understand how moving the configuration options into a separate
>> document might be nice, I'm probably not the right person to make this
>> happen, and I'd be grateful if this idea wouldn't block the addition of
>> an option to enable MUC MAM.  If people agree with such an option, can
>> we just put it into XEP-0045 until someone moves things around?
> Guess XEP-0045 is fine, it already has a pubsub specific config uption, so
> why not MAM too.
> Further things missing in this change though are:
> - possibly adding a status code for this, there is one for public logging
> after all ( 7.2.13 Room Logging ), but this is probably not a requirement
> - a reference to this option in section 13.3 Privacy, it sounds worthy
> enough to mention there
> If that's done i'm +1 for the change.
> Cheers,
> Tobi
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20160805/d0097178/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list