[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0459 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2022)
kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Sep 30 08:25:05 UTC 2021
On 29 Sep 2021, at 17:32, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> Sorry this is so late, and thanks to Sonny for taking up the hard task
> of fighting this through the Council.
> * Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name> [2021-09-07 16:04]:
>> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
>> XEP-0459 [...] XMPP Compliance Suites 2022
> 1. As part of the work on XEP-0313, two XEPs got split out:
> - XEP-0441: Message Archive Management Preferences
I think preferences just aren’t generally useful enough to be needed in the suite.
> - XEP-0442: Pubsub Message Archive Management
I think we’re probably the only people doing pubsub MAM, and I wouldn’t argue that it’s going to be useful in the compliance suites - we had some quite specific requirements, otherwise we’d probably not have bothered.
> I think that at least XEP-0441 belongs into Advanced IM to keep the
> same functionality as before.
I don’t think there’s a particular reason to keep the same functionality as before - they were split out of 313 precisely because they’re not as widely needed as the rest of it.
> 2. As editor of earlier Compliance Suites, I used to review the
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#future section to see which
> XEPs have matured over the previous year and could be added into one of
> the Suites.
> I might be slightly biased, but I would like to propose the following
> three for Advanced IM Client and Server:
> - XEP-0379: Pre-Authenticated Roster Subscription
> - XEP-0401: Easy User Onboarding
> - XEP-0445: Pre-Authenticated In-Band Registration
> In parallel, I'd like to ask The Editor about issuing Last Calls for
> 0379 and 0445, and Marc to step in and ask for LCing 0401.
If the suites were framed as current advice on what to implement, then advising these if you want to do registration would seem reasonable to me, but as long as it’s “compliance” suites, I don’t think mandating registration approaches is helpful - it means any systems that don’t need registration can’t be compliant, and that reduces the value in the specs.
> 3. It is also good to check https://xmpp.org/extensions/ for new
> additions. From there, I suggest adding the following new XEPs to the
> "Future Development" section:
> - XEP-0453: DOAP usage in XMPP
Not arguing it’s not useful, but ISTM how projects advertise themselves shouldn’t be a part of (future) compliance.
> - XEP-0455: Service Outage Status
> - for E2EE: XEP-0450: Automatic Trust Management (ATM)
Are we sure 450’s in a state where it’s sensible to call it out?
More information about the Standards