> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to > clarify an existing protocol?
Yes. > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and > requirements? A missing piece of data is incoming subscriptions, for which there is no roster entry. I suggest adding a section for <presence xmlns='jabber:client' type='subscribe' from='n...@host'/> in the XEP. It might be appropriate for the XEP to explicitly acknowledge that implementations may extend the format by including custom elements and attributes (qualified by appropriate namespaces). Off the top of my head, some extensions I would like to use (listed here for my reference, if no one else's): - Privacy lists, i.e., <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'> under <user>. - Last activity information. Possibly a <presence xmlns='jabber:client' type='unavailable'/> under <user>. - Other user meta-data. For example, marking a user as an admin: <identity xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' category='account' type='admin'/> under <user>, or maybe <user xmlns:disco='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' disco:type='admin'>. - PEP data under <user>. - PubSub and MUC data (out of scope of the XEP, yes, but no reason not to export and import it). - Server and host configuration data under <server-data> and <host> (yes, implementation specific, but still useful). - Replacing the 'password' attribute on the <user> element with something else when using hashed passwords, certificates, etc. About the XInclude support, I like how the examples use namespace prefixes on attributes. I think the SOAP over XMPP XEP is the only other one with examples using those. > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not? Yes, I plan to write an exporter and importer for Prosody. It would be interesting to have a Prosody storage backend which uses the XEP-0227 format directly. It would work fine for small installations. > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? Need to be careful about XInclude, but nothing else in particular. > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? Yes. > Your feedback is appreciated! Good. -- Waqas Hussain
