Thanks for the feedback; I'll address some of it below, however, I think we should leave any changes for next year since the last call ended before this feedback was submitted.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:12, Kevin Smith wrote: > I think 49 needs to be in there for servers - it’s widely needed to make > clients useful. What is actually using this today other than a few legacy clients that haven't updated their bookmarks implementation? I do not think we should be recommending this going forward, so I didn't include it. > 84 is listed as N/A for server, but I think it’s possible for a server > satisfying its requirements to not meet the requirements of 84 (someone > tell me if I’m wrong). What requirements? That definitely sounds like a problem if so. > I’m not sure about listing resumption as needed for IM - as discussed > earlier in the MUC I don’t think it’s the real solution to that problem, > but it’s not a hill for me to die on. I disagree; this is essential for a good mobile experience. > 48 makes 223 support implicit, but I think making it explicit would be > sensible. Agreed. > On footnote 11, this feels a bit of a cop-out. I feel the barrier for a > server should be higher than just ‘does 114’ in order to claim to support > 60-on-a-jid and 45. I agree, but this footnote was already in there from past years so I left it alone. I'd love to relitigate this next year though. > 57 seems a fairly core requirement that’s missing Wrong number or is this something clients actually use? I don't think I've ever seen 57 and it's retracted. > and I think 153 needs > to be in there to reflect current reality - I wouldn’t recommend anyone > not implement it, even though we might think 84 is a better direction. Would it be satisfactory to say that read-only 0153 satisfies the requirement? I feel strongly that we shouldn't include 153, but the compromise Conversations made where it's read-only seems like a good one to me. > I think 220 should probably be in there, even today, but hills, dying, > etc. I'm not sure about this one, it doesn't seem necessary to me and it's probably not a direction we want to recommend going forward, but I wouldn't mind hearing from server developers and operators about it. > I think suggesting full 60 on a user JID would be a very sensible thing > to do, in the modern world, but maybe better delayed for next year. Agreed. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
