On 19 September 2017 at 17:04, Jonas Wielicki <jo...@wielicki.name> wrote: > Dear list, > > With my XEP Editor hat on, we’d like to issue a Call for Experience for > XEP-0368. This is the step taken before proposing advancement of a XEP to > Final status to Council. > > > During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: > > 1. What software has XEP-0368 implemented? Please note that the protocol > must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at least one of > which must be free or open-source software) in order to advance from > Draft to Final. >
Metre, my S2S Proxy and Component Host, has implemented XEP-0368 for some time, though without implementing ALPN. Artguably this places it in breach of the specification as written, and I'd be curious as to whether ALPN in particular is in other implementations. I'm sure I can put the support in, I just haven't yet. Metre is MIT-licensed, thus qualifies as an implementation, however it does not interoperate with clients by its nature, and therefore I would consider it essential for another server to exist to cover this requirement. > 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined > in XEP-0368? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible, > suggested solutions. > I have not found any problems, other than a slightly increased complexity at session startup. > 3. Is the text of XEP-0368 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples > needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? Have > developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any > suggestions you have for improving the text. > It's clear enough for me. > If you have any comments about advancing XEP-0368 from Draft to Final, > please provide them by the close of business on Tuesday, October 3rd, > 2017. After the Call for Experience, this XEP might undergo revisions to > address feedback received, after which it will be presented to the XMPP > Council for voting to a status of Final. While I have no objections to moving to Final at this time, I would note: a) I query whether ALPN needs to be SHOULD rather than MAY, particularly for S2S cases. b) We may wish to republish this as an RFC in the future, and/or fold it into a revision of the core specification. Dave. > > > You can review the specification here: > > https://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0368.html > > Please send all feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list. > > Thanks! > > Jonas > > P.S.: Procedural note: I’m not entirely clear on what is allowed to trigger a > CFE (I don’t think that’s spelled out in XEP-0001). In this specific case, the > author asked for it. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
