I see the compliance suite as a list of XEPs that should be implemented if you want to create a modern day instant messenger. It is not a guideline on what crude hacks you have to do if you want to be compatible with some random multi protocol messenger that hasn't been updated in a decade.
There I oppose the idea of putting 0153, 0049 in there - especially if you consider this a guideline for someone implementing a new server it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to implement 0049. I am open to putting a slightly updated version of 0153 in the 2019 compliance suite after we accepted the pep-vcard conversion and after we put (configurable) access control in front of 0153. That will give us the option of very carefully defining that 0153 is meant to be read only. But 0153 is not ready in that regard and should wait until 2019. cheers Daniel 2017-12-06 19:12 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith <[email protected]>: > On 1 Nov 2017, at 16:47, Jonas Wielicki <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Montag, 16. Oktober 2017 18:38:46 CET Jonas Wielicki wrote: >>> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on >>> XEP-0387. >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels for 2017. >>> >>> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on >>> 2017-10-30. >> >> The Last Call is extended until 2017-11-15 on behalf of the XMPP Council. > > Some somewhat late feedback on this: > > I think 49 needs to be in there for servers - it’s widely needed to make > clients useful. > 84 is listed as N/A for server, but I think it’s possible for a server > satisfying its requirements to not meet the requirements of 84 (someone tell > me if I’m wrong). > I’m not sure about listing resumption as needed for IM - as discussed earlier > in the MUC I don’t think it’s the real solution to that problem, but it’s not > a hill for me to die on. > 48 makes 223 support implicit, but I think making it explicit would be > sensible. > On footnote 11, this feels a bit of a cop-out. I feel the barrier for a > server should be higher than just ‘does 114’ in order to claim to support > 60-on-a-jid and 45. Not a hill for me to die on again, but - should we ask > for more? Like a pointer to which components work with that server to make > them compliant? Maybe that we’re not doing testing makes it irrelevant anyway. > 57 seems a fairly core requirement that’s missing, and I think 153 needs to > be in there to reflect current reality - I wouldn’t recommend anyone not > implement it, even though we might think 84 is a better direction. > I think 220 should probably be in there, even today, but hills, dying, etc. > > I think suggesting full 60 on a user JID would be a very sensible thing to > do, in the modern world, but maybe better delayed for next year. > > > > /K > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
