[Standards] XEP-0375: View from Openfire
dave at cridland.net
Mon Jul 11 15:17:14 UTC 2016
We've been discussing the Compliance suite over the past few hours in
person, and we've some general comments.
1) There's a number of possible purposes to this document. We believe it's
aimed to progress the state of the art, and act as a marketing/procurement
label. Does this seem right?
2) We note that there are a considerable number of options for servers. In
most of the modules, it's not clear any server would aspire to Core. Some
of the choices within Core versus Advanced are peculiar - why are we
mandating Carbons, for example, but not MUC? All servers can provide MUC,
so surely that's not contentious to have as Core.
Is it worth removing Core Server?
Can we merge IM into the Core Suite to reduce the numbers of options?
3) While binary support of XEPs is useful as a high level overview, many
XEPs are more subtle than a mere yes or no. Does XEP-0198 support mean
resumption? Should PEP be persistent?
We are, however keen that there are Compliance XEPs, keen to include full
support into Openfire, and fully support a frequent update of such XEPs to
provide momentum to the community.
These comments are a group effort from:
Guus der Kinderen, Dele Olajide, Marc Laporte, and Dave Cridland.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards