On 30 April 2015 at 16:39, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 4) Top level non-stanza elements > > > > Flow requested that Council discuss whether it is acceptable for a XEP > to introduce a new top-level non-stanza element. Consensus from the Council > members present was that this was not verboten, and should be judged on a > per-case basis. Further (interesting?) discussion can be found in the room > logs. > > > I agree that adding top-level elements shouldn't be forbidden; they're extremely useful for manipulation and reporting of state relating to the connection or stream. CSI is the case in point - however it's worth nothing that while a careful reading does tell you that a session resumed by 198 would be considered "active", it does require a careful reading; an explicit statement might help. > 6) Any other business > > > > Flow commented that he wanted progress made on MAM. No Council actions > needed. > I'd like to see this as well - my understanding is we have a consensus to switch back from the sentinel to an <iq/> result - what's the next steps needed? Would the authors like some text and/or a patch? Dave.
