On 27 Jan 2015, at 15:12, Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21/01/2015 16:38, Kevin Smith wrote: >> It is, but I don’t think privcomp mentions this requirement at all.* > > It is not a requirement, because privileged entities can be used for other > things than an external PEP service. In addition it was written before > namespace delegation, I can add a note which link to it, but it is not a > dependency. > >> If it claims to be allowing you to implement PEP services, it surely needs >> to reference how to use the bits together to do so? Otherwise stupid people >> (of whom I’m certainly not one) might read this in isolation and wonder >> what’s going on (which I absolutely didn’t). > > I'll add a note about this, but the 2 (proto)XEP can be used independently. > Namespace Delegation has a note mentionning privileged entity in > "Introduction". > >> >> (I’m not blocking on this, BTW) > > I'm not sure about this sentence: you aren't blocking at all or you are > blocking on something else ? Because I see no mention of privileged entity in > last council minutes, and the protoXEP is still not experimental. So if its > blocked, what is still the source of problems ? There are a couple of thing > mentionned in last message that I'll change on next revision, but I don't see > any major issue.
It was not blocked by Council, it’ll be published once the Editors have a chance. /K
