[Standards] XEP-0384: Rejecting? [Was: Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Ephemeral Messages]

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 2 12:05:19 UTC 2020


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 10:11, Maxime Buquet <pep at bouah.net> wrote:

> As the XEP hasn't yet been submitted for Draft, this feels to me as
> coming back on previous council decisions and as I remember you seemed
> to have an opinion on this.
>
>
It is difficult to interpret your comment above in any way other than
deliberate snark, and it is made more unpleasant given that this, and other
comments you made, were already addressed in parts of my message that you
chose to elide from your reply. I include them below on the assumption you
didn't read them by accident rather than the alternative, which is that you
are deliberately snipping parts of my message.

On 2020/01/01, Dave Cridland wrote:

> If we reject specifications at the ProtoXEP stage because they're not open
> standard (RTMP, STANAG 5066, as previous examples - in the latter case NATO
> simply published their spec after we prompted), shouldn't we reject OMEMO?
> I should remind you that OMEMO *was* rejected at ProtoXEP stage for
> precisely this reason, and was later reverted to being based off the Signal
> library after acceptance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200102/92c289fc/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list