I don't recall whether it was on the Summit floor, or in a chat I had afterwards, but I recall some agreement that a good first step would be an updated Compliance Suite which would give us an agreed starting point on what an XMPP 2.0 might look like.
Dan On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 at 18:38, Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > At the recent Summit, we had a long and nuanced discussion about the state > of the XMPP RFCs and whether there is value in updating parts of them, > potentially through the IETF, to better reflect how XMPP is actually > implemented and used today. > > To be clear upfront: This is not a proposal to start an IETF working > group, nor a commitment to produce new RFCs. The discussion at the Summit > surfaced enough open questions that it seems worthwhile to first have a > focused scoping and feasibility discussion. > > Some of the motivations that were raised: > > - The current RFCs do not describe a baseline that results in > interoperable modern implementations > - Discoverability for new implementers is difficult (knowing which > XEPs are "essential") > - The IM landscape has changed significantly since the original RFCs > - External review and feedback could be valuable > - There may be marketing and positioning benefits, but these are > secondary > > At the same time, many concerns were raised: > > - The sheer amount of work required, and whether we realistically have > the manpower > - Risk of scope creep (e.g., baking too much into RFCs) > - Loss of flexibility compared to the XEP process > - Fear of starting something we cannot finish > - Unclear interaction with compliance suites and the "living standard" > nature of XMPP > - Potential pushback or distraction from other IETF efforts (e.g., > MIMI) > > Questions that seem worth discussing at this stage: > > - Is it useful to think about updating some RFCs (e.g., core, IM), > while leaving the rest to XEPs? > - What would be clearly in-scope vs out-of-scope? > - Is there enough interest and capacity to justify exploring this > further? > - What would be a sensible first step that does not overcommit us? > > If you were at the Summit and felt strongly one way or the other, it would > be great to hear your perspective here. If you weren't, fresh viewpoints > are equally welcome. > > The goal of this thread is simply to assess whether this topic is worth > pursuing further, and if so, in what very limited and realistic form. > > Kind regards, > > Guus > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
