[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Dec 6 18:12:55 UTC 2017


On 1 Nov 2017, at 16:47, Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> 
> On Montag, 16. Oktober 2017 18:38:46 CET Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
>> XEP-0387.
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2017.
>> 
>> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
>> 2017-10-30.
> 
> The Last Call is extended until 2017-11-15 on behalf of the XMPP Council.

Some somewhat late feedback on this:

I think 49 needs to be in there for servers - it’s widely needed to make clients useful.
84 is listed as N/A for server, but I think it’s possible for a server satisfying its requirements to not meet the requirements of 84 (someone tell me if I’m wrong).
I’m not sure about listing resumption as needed for IM - as discussed earlier in the MUC I don’t think it’s the real solution to that problem, but it’s not a hill for me to die on.
48 makes 223 support implicit, but I think making it explicit would be sensible.
On footnote 11, this feels a bit of a cop-out. I feel the barrier for a server should be higher than just ‘does 114’ in order to claim to support 60-on-a-jid and 45. Not a hill for me to die on again, but - should we ask for more? Like a pointer to which components work with that server to make them compliant? Maybe that we’re not doing testing makes it irrelevant anyway.
57 seems a fairly core requirement that’s missing, and I think 153 needs to be in there to reflect current reality - I wouldn’t recommend anyone not implement it, even though we might think 84 is a better direction.
I think 220 should probably be in there, even today, but hills, dying, etc.

I think suggesting full 60 on a user JID would be a very sensible thing to do, in the modern world, but maybe better delayed for next year.



/K


More information about the Standards mailing list