[Standards] XMPP Registrar: Registration policy

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Jan 2 18:24:21 UTC 2017

On 1/2/17 11:05 AM, Tobias Markmann wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com
> <mailto:sam at samwhited.com>> wrote:
>     I recently proposed a change [1] to the way the XMPP registries work to
>     require that all registries have a ``registration policy" which would
>     determine how entries are added to the registry (eg.
>     first-come-first-server might mean that anyone could simply add an
>     entry, but spec-required might mean that some normative text that
>     explains how the registry entry works and what it's for be written
>     first).
>     Peter suggested that I bring this to the list, and it does seem worth
>     discussing, so here it is. Peter's view was that:
>     > The IETF has been moving toward "First Come, First Served" in most
>     > cases, and I don't see a compelling reason for the XSF to move in the
>     > opposite direction by adding more formality to our processes.
>     In my mind the only real distinction that's necessary is "should entries
>     in this registry require a normative description, or is this just a
>     non-normative list that can be safely ignored". However, if the registry
>     is only intended as a way to make sure your custom namespace, feature,
>     option, etc. doesn't conflict with other peoples usage (but without
>     guaranteeing any compatibility if you choose to implement things in the
>     registry already in use by other people), then I agree with Peter, it's
>     easier just to keep it first-come-first-served.
>     Thoughts?
> You created the PR for a reason not? Was the reason invalidated now? I
> don't see that much difference between first-come-first-serve and
> specification-required anyway. Specification-required would still be
> first-come-first-server, not? Just with the additional requirement of an
> open specification.
> A registry for namespaces used in XEPs would always have the registry
> entries being defined in a RFC or a XEP. Or did you have
> custom/proprietary namespaces in mind that are also added to the registry?

Well, we have multiple registries. :-)


In the past, we have added things like service discovery identities 
without updating a spec:


A policy of "Specification Required" is somewhat heavy. First Come First 
Served (FCFS) is very lightweight. Something in between is "Expert 
Review". These are all described in RFC 5226 (see also 

If we get serious about this, we would need to:

1. Define the different policies we want to use, probably by copying 
them with modifications from RFC 5226 / rfc5226bis.

2. Update all the relevant XEPs (e.g., XEP-0030) to specify which policy 
applies to the registries defined in those XEPs.

3. Start enforcing the policies.

As I said, I'm not really sure how much of a benefit there is here, but 
I'm open to argument.


More information about the Standards mailing list