Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 wrote: > I agree. We have gotten some heat in goverment circles about the > draft status of xep45 and its dependencies. > > I assume if we make a xep final that all of its dependencies must be > final?
That seems like the right approach. Some of the existing dependencies for XEP-0045 are Informational (i.e., they simply provide a "profile" of an existing standard). Examples include XEP-0068, XEP-0082, and XEP-0128. However, in the interest of reducing confusion we might want to make those Standards Track, because the Informational type seems to confuse people. > How are going to make changes to a final xep in the future? As we do now. :) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#mods > Would it > be a number like they do in ietf? Personnally I thank that is > confusing. Unlike the IETF (which still treats RFCs as paper documents in a way), we edit in place, which means that we incorporate errata and corrections without issuing a new document number. But all such changes must be discussed on this list and formally approved by the XMPP Council (in fact that is true of Draft specs as well). Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
