On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Lance. > > Does anyone else have feedback on 152? Is anyone other than Lance using it? > Anyone, please? /K > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Lance Stout <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send > your > > feedback to the [email protected] discussion list: > > > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack > or > > to clarify an existing protocol? > > > > > > Yes, there are use cases for this spec, which my company has used this > XEP > > for already for associating phone and SMS numbers with a JID. > > > > Additionally, I think this XEP is very helpful for the case of migrating > to > > a new JID. > > > > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > and > > requirements? > > > > > > Yes, the given problem is solved by the XEP. > > > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why > > not? > > > > > > Yes, we have already used this in internal systems. If this isn't in > > SleekXMPP already, it will be. > > > > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? > > > > > > None beyond what is already specified. This type of information would > tend > > to be available already in other formats. > > > > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > Your feedback is appreciated! > > > > > > +1 on moving forward > > >
