On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:44, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On August 12, 2015 3:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The thread is moving somewhat away from Carbons Last Calls, but this is >> all related so I won’t feel too guilty. I have two opinions here: >> [..] >> 2) Carbons will need some changes in the (hopefully near) future once >> the pubsub/account stuff is specced/we have deployment experience. I >> believe this means that going to Draft now wouldn’t be appropriate, as >> knowing there will be backwards-incompatible changes is at odds with >> the Draft requirement of avoiding such things where possible. > > * Does this mean you'd vote -1 if Carbons remains mostly as-is for now?
For Draft, yes, which is very different to saying I think it has no merit, or that I don’t think an appropriate version should go to Draft. Voting something to Draft when I think it’s likely to need further changes seems inconsistent with xep1. > * How do you feel such backwards incompatible changes would work out in > practice? I do feel implementors take a risk in putting experimental specs in > production, but also see the high-profile nature of this work and the bigger > context with other IM systems. I think they’d work out as a new namespace, but I’m not sure. If we could get the other pieces in place we’d be able to see the bigger picture and be more confident in these things. I think that MUC2 is not a prerequisite part of these other pieces for Carbons to be able to advance, but defining how it interacts with Pubsub/Account seems necessary. It also seems necessary to include type=normal (I think we can get away from type=groupchat, thankfully, cleanly in the MUC2/PubsubAccount approach). > * Could your envisioned changes be add-on instead? I.e. is there a chance of > future proofing this (now)? Possibly, but I don’t think we’ve got the picture firm enough yet. /K
