So, for the Last Call that was supposed to expire in December but we all forgot...
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to > clarify an existing protocol? Yes > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and > requirements? Yes > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not? Yes, it has been included in SleekXMPP for a while now, as well as Carbons and MAM which require it. > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? None beyond what is already called out in the XEP. > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? Yes. Given the other recent mail on the standards list about Carbons nesting its content inside the <forwarded /> element, and the currently published version of MAM using the old sibling method, it might be useful to go ahead and mandate that nesting the using protocol's content is a MUST instead of a SHOULD. We'll just need to bother MattJ into submitting his updated version of the MAM spec to the editor. -- Lance
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
