[Standards] XEP-0375: View from Openfire

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Jul 11 15:46:11 UTC 2016


On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 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?

That was more or less my intention, and I think also the intention of
others when we've had discussions about renewing them in the past.

> 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.

Sounds reasonable, I didn't even consider MUC, oddly enough.

> Can we merge IM into the Core Suite to reduce the numbers of options?

This seems fine to me too; the reason I separated them is that I was
hoping someone would add an "IoT" suite (or a suite for some use case
I haven't thought of), and I figured things like carbons and the
blocking command may not always be required there, however, it doesn't
look like there's been a lot of interest in that, and I'm all for
simplifying.

> 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.

Many thanks! I agree about the binary nature of the current suites not
exactly matching the real world. Daniel Gultch suggested swapping out
XEPs for "features" and just listing XEPs that can provide those
features (eg. instead of listing 0198 listing "session resumption").
What do you all think of this? Are there other places this might be
helpful?

Best,
Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com


More information about the Standards mailing list