Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017, at 08:49, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > There is: the Council blocking publication of XEPs. Publish the thing, > > get it into XSF processes, and work on the spec in the right way. Ship > > and

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017, at 08:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I realize people voiced a concern with not being able to develop to the > spec right away. That's why it's 0.1. Coders aren't stupid, they realize > that 0.1 means it's early days. If they run into ambiguities, they'll > provide feedback

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On 8/31/17 7:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > > On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > > On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > >> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub : > >>> First things first: My

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch wrote: >> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub : >>> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF inbox was >>> to get some comments and first

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports

On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub : >> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF inbox was >> to get some comments and first feedback in order to discover caveats and >>