On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 3:23 PM Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Zash, > > On 03/08/2022 15.00, Kim Alvefur wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 03:03:07PM -0000, Jonas Schäfer wrote: > >> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > >> and requirements? > > > > Yes, and then some. I want to state for the record that the > > specification is overly generic and allows for all kinds of service > > details to be communicated. Early versions were limited to STUN/TURN > > and that may have been a good idea. > > > Could you elaborate on why you believe that narrowing the XEPs scope > (e.g., to STUN/TURN) would be a good idea?
Hypothetically if nobody implements a significant aspect of a XEP we might not be able to advance the XEP to Final since we are not going to have the two independent implementations necessary for that. What counts as significant aspects and whether or not that would be problematic for XEP-0215 is obviously up for debate. I've seen multiple people - including myself - point out that they need this for TURN. And nobody mentioned how cool it is that they can communicate FTP credentials. That's probably saying something. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
