What’s the bar for “core”? I would think it at least mature Draft standard if not Full standard.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to add Carbons to core when it seems that there’s not consensus that it’s the best solution for any problem the majority of XMPP IM/MUC deployments are facing. — Kurt > On Jun 17, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <pe...@andyet.net> > wrote: > > On 6/17/15 3:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> >> On 17 June 2015 at 20:52, Curtis King <ck...@mumbo.ca >> <mailto:ck...@mumbo.ca>> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net >> <mailto:d...@cridland.net>> wrote: >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > Many moons past, before the dawn of a couple of years ago, we had >> things like XEP-0302, which declared that - excitingly - advanced servers >> might want to implement PEP. >> > >> > I think that these days, any server should be doing PEP. I suspect >> we're nearing the point where we need to consider Carbons as a "Core", >> rather than "Advanced”. >> >> When was Carbons even listed as Advanced? >> >> >> Yeah... I read that back and wondered what the hell I meant, sorry, that >> was hopelessly unclear of me. >> >> I meant to say that Carbons wasn't even on there before, whereas it's >> now pretty much essential. > > Agreed with respect to the technology. With respect to the process, the > Carbons XEP is still Experimental. I think that it's not right to make a XEP > part of a compliance suite if it's still Experimental. But that can be solved > by moving the XEP forward on the standards track. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://andyet.com/
