I'm really busy these days and couldn't do an extensive review, but here is my feedback:

1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?

Definitely, there is a high demand for this kind of list from users, and on the dev side it's really useful for newcomers to have a starting point and to know where to look at.

2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?

It's really chat focused, and I would like to see other categories, notably a "social" one. I would put there XEP-0277 as the bare minimum, and RSM for PubSub + MAM for Pubsub for advanced clients.

Also I have the feeling that the XEP numbers support is not enough, as a XEP can be only partially supported (for instance, support for XEP-0060 is really different from one software to an other), so a more fine-grained indicator could be useful. On the other hand, it may over-complicate the compliance suit, so I'm just throwing the idea.

I wonder also if it would make sense to announce a compliance support in disco, so a client could check a server compliance without having to check all XEPs namespaces individually.

Why Jingle SOCKS5 Bytestreams Transport Method (XEP-0260) is missing from the list while XEP-0261 is there?

3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?

For this specific XEP there is no notion of implementation, but I'm using it to have an idea of what I need to implement yes.

4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?


5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

the specification is clear.


As a side note, it would be useful to have the notes showed in hover tooltips in the rendered XEP, that would avoid to go down and up just to read them.

I hope this will be useful

Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org

Reply via email to