-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Patches should be submitted to edi...@xmpp.org. We can take it from here this time, though (-:
XEP-143 briefly goes over it, but I think we'll need to reexamine and update that document soon. - -- - - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LK55L > On 4/29/15 12:51 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote: > How would you like those submitting? The link is to a git patch > which can be applied upstream. > > On 29 April 2015 at 12:26, Philipp Hancke > <fi...@goodadvice.pages.de <mailto:fi...@goodadvice.pages.de>> > wrote: > > Am 17.04.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Ben Langfeld: > > Changes suggested to this specification in this thread, with the > exception of those deferred to v2, are available at > https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/compare/1b4ee7f...feature/rayo.patch > > > ah... LGTM. Can you resubmit please? > > (if I had only said that before the council meeting) > > +1 for advancing with those changes. > > > On 6 April 2015 at 11:26, XMPP Extensions Editor <edi...@xmpp.org > <mailto:edi...@xmpp.org>> wrote: > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > XEP-0327 (Rayo). > > Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for > the third-party control of telephone calls and other similar media > sessions. The protocol includes support for session > management/signaling, as well as advanced media resources such as > speech recognizers, speech synthesizers and audio/video recorders. > The protocol serves a different purpose from that of first-party > protocols such as Jingle or SIP, and is compatible with those > protocols. > > URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0327.html > > This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business > on 2015-04-17. > > Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and > send your feedback to the standards@xmpp.org > <mailto:standards@xmpp.org> discussion list: > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? 2. Does the specification > solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements? 3. > Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > why not? 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this > specification? 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly > written? > > Your feedback is appreciated! > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVQSnbAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1JV4H/RqMPgALHZ9JBVCqyZ62HhnY 8Hf2sNlG5ZpMs/HIPC0E92XXsWH7vjM31+CBAi2xvl+ajWtG12iIHbsLbvW+Fa+l X32VXJuk7jAkm9zmQQkDd2lElg9V2hICmSi+S72PnjG3cvKIf3JEmB9Jf+uJ2FSC LJAqWau1IaKtlmjsr264eab7yu+kP0j/gca3Zcgkm0PmQyWgf8qiSVbi22TSTdR9 i1Jqj+EbmS+bbukHAvn7ZMNrGpmwhqIeSpTLYjP6pIm9Hl+02QdA9NqA6rRuNGpQ JyAAzDNQLaU2YhbWWGUcZrFP5RNH/yos8SkWg7w+LIEMMqQIToUnPKqQbkN19dk= =XPWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
