[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Aug 31 13:53:21 UTC 2017

On 8/31/17 7:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im
> <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im>> wrote:
>     On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>     > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de <mailto:daniel at gultsch.de>> wrote:
>     >> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub <vanitasvitae at riseup.net <mailto:vanitasvitae at riseup.net>>:
>     >>> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF inbox was
>     >>> to get some comments and first feedback in order to discover caveats and
>     >>> pitfalls in the protocol.
>     >>> By no means I'd consider JET ready to be implemented or accepted :D
>     >>
>     >> OK. Fair enough. I think what people usually do at this stage is
>     >> render the XEP themselves, put it up somewhere and show it around to
>     >> get some feedback. That way you don't trigger council action and it is
>     >> way easier to make changes because you don't have to go through the
>     >> editor.
>     >>
>     >
>     > This is getting a bit meta, but the reason I really dislike that is
>     > that you're asking people to work on protocol stuff outside the IPR
>     > policy of the XSF. This exposes people implementing, or discussing, to
>     > all sorts of legal shenanigans that are somewhat mitigated by the
>     > copyright assignment in submission.
>     >
>     > If there's something preventing this, we really need to fix it.
>     There is: the Council blocking publication of XEPs. Publish the thing,
>     get it into XSF processes, and work on the spec in the right way. Ship
>     and iterate!
> Which has been improved upon greatly in the past few weeks! I'm hoping
> that we can keep that up, and improve where needed.

I realize people voiced a concern with not being able to develop to the
spec right away. That's why it's 0.1. Coders aren't stupid, they realize
that 0.1 means it's early days. If they run into ambiguities, they'll
provide feedback on the list.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170831/6cc99199/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list