<bump/> Any feedback or objections?
On 2/11/11 1:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > OK folks, I've made a first attempt at updating the spec, including > Dave's patch. The results are here: > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.2.html > > Please review and comment. > > (IMHO the document doesn't provide a super-clear explanation of what the > protocol does and why it matters -- I'll try to add a paragraph like > that to the introduction.) > > /psa > > On 1/12/11 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> In preparation for the XMPP Summit in a few weeks, I'm reviewing the >> status of several XEPs and preparing summaries so that we can quickly >> come to agreement regarding open issues. First on my list is XEP-0198. >> >> Many moons ago (last June, July, and September) there was a discussion >> thread about this spec: >> >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023512.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023525.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023526.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023647.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023649.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023655.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023656.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-July/023648.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023770.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023768.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023797.html >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023846.html >> >> I see two main points... >> >> 1. Dave Cridland helpfully sent in a patch based on implementation >> feedback in M-Link and Psi, analyzed here: >> >> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-September/023769.html >> >> I don't disagree with anything in the patch, so I think it can be >> applied, and will plan to do that soon if there are no objections from >> my co-authors. I'll also add Dave as a co-author, naturally. >> >> 2. Folks seem to think it would be good to replace the current rule >> (based on number of stanzas) with a time-based rule. For example, >> Matthew Wild wrote: >> >> I think the unacked stanza count should be switched for a time-based >> algorithm. Perhaps something along the lines of the BOSH timeout >> handshake... >> >> IMHO that is a good topic for discussion at the Summit, or of course >> here on the list before then. It's not reflected in Dave's patch, unless >> I'm missing something obvious. >> >> Are there any other issues we need to discuss regarding XEP-0198? >> >> Peter >> > -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
