On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Jacek Konieczny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 02:29:51PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >> Council recently(ish) approved that all XEPs referencing the obsolete >> RFCs have their references updated to the current versions. > > I guess it is ok in most cases, when the RFC references are to 'the XMPP > specification', but that XEP used in in a bit different context. > > Most XEPs define some functionality on top of the XMPP protocol (which > could be RFC 3920 or RFC 6120). This one defines sets of protocol > specifications and RFC 3920 is a different protocol specification than > RFC 6120. > > And it just look ridiculous in this case.
Possibly. >> It's possible that not incrementing the version number wasn't ideal, >> but in any case software should be targeting whatever the current RFCs >> are, rather than obsolete ones so it seems like this should be a >> non-issue. > > But, then what is the meaning of '2009' in 'XMPP Core Client 2009'? Well, who cares about what we thought was important in '09? :) But Core Client 2009 is the list of things that in 2009 we thought a Core Client should implement - one could (very reasonably) argue that we believed that clients should implement the current version of xmpp-core and xmpp-im at any given time. That said, I'll bring it up at Council this week and see if there's consensus to revert the change. /K
