I believe there is a distinction between the Federation Protocol and the XMPP Extension. Obviously the Federation Protocol was born as an extension of XMPP. It may or may not live on as such forever. Currently the XMPP extension is looked at as one possible transport for the federation protocol. Other transports such as HTTP are also being investigated.
I don't think it's clear how that concept will develop, but until there is more development it might be premature to manage the federation protocol directly under the XMPP project. On Nov 15, 12:10 pm, Dave butlerdi <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not run the protocol portion through the XMPP Extension processes and > the WIAB as an Apache project with > OT and other bits as sub projects. This would solve all of the immediate > problems and allow those who have expended > energy and budget to get on with their projects. > > On 15 November 2010 20:34, antwatkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My main concern, regardless of where we maintain the protocol vs the > > code for the RI, is that it is not a requirement to develop on the RI > > that is WIAB to have elevated status on the protocol itself. So if > > they are hosted together I think there should be a path for committers > > and members of the PPMC that does not require heavy involvement in > > WIAB development. Therefore, companies or individuals developing > > their own Wave servers or products that integrate through federation > > can have equal influence in regards to the protocol. These > > individuals would still serve committer roles through maintaining the > > website, helping users, monitoring issues, and helping to decide on > > release plans. Their focus would just not be code based. As long as > > we can accomplish this through the Apache framework, I vote we keep > > them together to minimize overhead. > > > R, > > > Anthony > > > On Nov 15, 11:31 am, Tad Glines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree that at some point we need to create a standard that is separate > > from the reference implementation. Once we have a working reference > > implementation, we should write and submit a draft to the IETF. Based on > > what I've read on the IETF site, you have to have a working implementation > > before a draft will even be considered as a proposed standard. I don't think > > it matters where we maintain our initial draft documentation. If we think > > that having a separate waveprotocol.org website will encourage greater > > participation and adoption, then that's the way to go. > > > > -Tad > > > > On Nov 14, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Michael MacFadden < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > During the Wave Summit we discussed several topics. The possible move > > > > of the WAIB project to apache incubator has been covered elsewhere: > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/536. > > .. > > > > > However, in relation to the move to apache, the question of the Wave > > > > Protocol vs the implementation that is Wave In A Box was raised. > > > > Typically apache projects are code oriented. Apache does not > > > > typically act as a standards bodies. This is bit of a gray area > > > > since new projects applications / utilities often include XML / SQL > > > > schemas, APIs, and messaging formats that other entities would need to > > > > adopt to work with those components. These could be considered pseudo > > > > standards; however, they typically dicate how to use or integrate with > > > > the tool in question. They aren't really defining a public standard > > > > that everyone should adopt. > > > > > When we were initially discussing the the move to Apache, we assumed > > > > that both the protocol and the implementation would both transition to > > > > apache. All content would then be migrate from waveprotocol.org to > > > > the new apache project. However it was brought up that another option > > > > would be to leave all items relating to protocol development on > > > > waveprotocol.org; only the Wave in a Box project (code, docs, wiki, > > > > etc) would move to apache. > > > > > The gist being that WIAB becomes the reference implementation for the > > > > protocol, but that the two may indeed be managed differently. > > > > waveprotocol.org could become the public body responsible for working > > > > on the protocol. Open discussion and changes to the protocol would > > > > happen there. There would be a process for planning and approving > > > > revisions to the protocol. Once a revision is published, the WIAB > > > > project would then update its codebase to maintain compliance. > > > > > A few benefits to this approach are: > > > > > - It fosters discipline on managing the protocol. Developers can't > > > > simply make de facto changes to the protocol just by modifying the > > > > WIAB code. > > > > - It is possible that those that theorize about the protocol and those > > > > that develop the WIAB codebase might not be the same group of people > > > > (right now their is obviously a large if not total overlap). > > > > - It sets us up to move the protocol to a formal standards body later > > > > on if we see fit. > > > > - It gives the impression that we are drinking our own cool aid, > > > > rather than running around with scissors. > > > > > I would like to open discussion on if this is what we want to do, or > > > > if we want to manage this all in one spot. There are pros and cons to > > > > each approach. > > > > > Sincere Regards, > > > > > Michael > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Wave Protocol" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > legroups.com> > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > legroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- > Regards > > Dave Butler > butlerdi-at-pharm2phork-dot-org > > Also on Skype as pharm2phork > > Get Skype herehttp://www.skype.com/download.html > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > www.mimesweeper.com > ********************************************************************** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
