The short version for people who don't want to read: I'll +1 the spec we voted on last night at next council unless someone posts saying that they agree with any of my objections. I won't turn this into another PEP if no-one agrees.
On Jan 9, 2008 11:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK folks, it seems that we're not quite there on XEP-0115 (Entity > Capabilities), or at least that some people (especially important people > with votes on the XMPP Council ;-) don't quite understand the logic > behind certain aspects of what we agreed to on the list. Yeah, ok, I'm put back in my place. > ISSUE #1: Do we need a new namespace? I don't believe so (I actively believe not). > ISSUE #2: Should the 'v' attribute be REQUIRED? Ok, I didn't join in on the list on this because I didn't want to keep repeating myself after saying it at council in August. Anyway, I'll go with RECOMMENDED for the sake of compromise (it's compromise we build here, rather than consensus, I think). To repeat my motivations for wanting ver in there: 1) The users want it, and we serve the users (the outcry was significant when we went from an iq:version flood to versions from caps clients in Psi), 2) knowing the remote entity version does, in the future, allow us to hard-code backwards compatability (no, it's not a situation I'd like to see, but if we lose versioning now, we never have the option. Anyway, I'll drop my objections at next council as long as I'm the only one here who feels this way. > ISSUE #3: Which hashing algorithms? My preference is a mandatory MD5, because it seems daft going with SHA1 (a third longer hashes) if it doesn't buy us anything over MD5. List consensus seems to be SHA1 though, so I'm not going to block on that as long as the way remains clear on list.
