Kevin Smith wrote: > On 17 Aug 2007, at 16:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> I propose that we write new specs to replace XEP-0048 and XEP-0145 > > I don't really know what's wrong with 48 - it's deployed, it works, and > once it's updated to the new private spec the last of the complaints > that I know of will be gone. Do we need to reinvent the wheel?
To change the namespace. Or we could do that when upgrading the spec from Historical + Active to Standards Track + Draft. >> specify that the payloads can be stored in iq:private or pubsub (i.e., >> using XEP-0223). > > Yes > >> XEP-0209 could be updated in place. > > Yes > >> XEP-0008 should be >> deprecated once XEP-0084 advances to Draft. > > I thought 8 had been retracted, and it's evil, so I'm not really sure > why it's even historical. It's Deferred. I think that needs to change to Deprecated, but we may want to wait until XEP-0084 advances. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
