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

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Wed Dec 6 18:47:59 UTC 2017


Thanks for the feedback; I'll address some of it below, however, I think
we should leave any changes for next year since the last call ended
before this feedback was submitted.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:12, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think 49 needs to be in there for servers - it’s widely needed to make
> clients useful.

What is actually using this today other than a few legacy clients that
haven't updated their bookmarks implementation? I do not think we should
be recommending this going forward, so I didn't include it.

> 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).

What requirements? That definitely sounds like a problem if so.

> 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.

I disagree; this is essential for a good mobile experience.

> 48 makes 223 support implicit, but I think making it explicit would be
> sensible.

Agreed.

> 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.

I agree, but this footnote was already in there from past years so I
left it alone. I'd love to relitigate this next year though.

> 57 seems a fairly core requirement that’s missing

Wrong number or is this something clients actually use? I don't think
I've ever seen 57 and it's retracted.

> 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.

Would it be satisfactory to say that read-only 0153 satisfies the
requirement? I feel strongly that we shouldn't include 153, but the
compromise Conversations made where it's read-only seems like a good one
to me.

> I think 220 should probably be in there, even today, but hills, dying,
> etc.

I'm not sure about this one, it doesn't seem necessary to me and it's
probably not a direction we want to recommend going forward, but I
wouldn't mind hearing from server developers and operators about it.

> 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.

Agreed.


—Sam


More information about the Standards mailing list