Wednesday, June 22, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
June
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
    1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
     
             
XMPP Council Room | https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation#council | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/ | https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda

[00:15:25] *** Kev shows as "away"
[05:44:34] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:16:28] *** Kev shows as "away"
[06:17:14] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:39:34] *** Kev shows as "away"
[06:40:00] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:24:03] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[13:33:51] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:49:58] *Kev continues working through the reviews for later.
[13:51:43] *stpeter prepares his second breakfast :)
[14:11:11] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[14:22:58] <stpeter> and while eating my second breakfast I pushed out a slightly revised version of XEP-0233 :)
[14:23:34] <Kev> I've almost finished realtimetext.
[14:23:35] <stpeter> I'm going to ping Alexey about reviewing it
[14:23:50] <Kev> The gift that keeps on giving :)
[14:24:05] <stpeter> ;-)
[14:25:33] <Kev> Aaand done. With plenty of time until Council :)
[14:25:39] <stpeter> yay!
[14:26:02] <stpeter> now to start rounding up Council members :P
[14:33:47] <stpeter> bbiaf
[14:37:29] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:39:17] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:43:14] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:43:45] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[14:48:47] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:48:47] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[14:49:05] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:51:35] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[14:51:36] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:51:55] *** Florob has joined the room
[14:52:22] *** MisterKanister has joined the room
[14:53:03] <stpeter> heh, my dent/tweet seems to have worked, although it remains to be seen how many Council members are online...
[14:53:40] *** MattJ has joined the room
[14:53:54] *stpeter waves to MattJ
[14:53:59] <MattJ> Hey :)
[14:54:29] *MattJ isn't feeling well today so has been offline, but he just remembered the meeting
[14:54:40] <stpeter> :(
[14:54:44] <stpeter> sorry to hear it
[14:55:40] <MattJ> I'm sure I'll survive
[14:56:29] *** petermount has joined the room
[14:56:47] <stpeter> well that's good news :)
[14:58:02] <stpeter> I pinged Ralph but he seems to be AFK
[14:58:28] <stpeter> Fritzy is offline as far as I can see
[14:59:08] <stpeter> it appears that our Council has been reduced to a Triumvirate...
[14:59:48] <MattJ> Is it contagious?
[15:00:40] <stpeter> :)
[15:00:55] <Kev> So. No sign of a quorum at the moment.
[15:02:04] <stpeter> linuxwolf is somewhat here but no doubt distracted in an IRL meeting
[15:02:14] <Kev> Right, linuxwolf sent apologies.
[15:03:16] <stpeter> yes
[15:04:15] <MattJ> Is Realtime Text the first XEP with an external homepage?
[15:04:43] <Kev> Probably.
[15:04:49] <MattJ> I'm half expecting to find it on Twitter and Facebook :)
[15:05:26] *** tuomas has joined the room
[15:05:45] <stpeter> gosh, maybe I need to get on this Facebook thing I've been hearing so much about
[15:05:58] <MattJ> Your face, in their book
[15:06:20] <MattJ> This RTT animation makes me dizzy, I never liked it in Wave either
[15:06:33] <Kev> So. I wonder what we should do about our wayward Council cousins.
[15:06:47] *** MiGri has joined the room
[15:06:51] <MattJ> Why don't we always just type half a sentence, if that's enough for the other person to start responding?
[15:06:53] <Kev> MattJ: I don't enjoy using it at all, but I'm not opposed to others doing so.
[15:07:05] <stpeter> Kev: well, one of them might not even be an XSF member any longer...
[15:07:07] <MattJ> Me neither (on both counts)
[15:07:17] <stpeter> agreed, on RTT
[15:07:38] <Kev> I thought RTT was vastly improved over v1, btw.
[15:07:47] <MattJ> ditto, though I haven't read it all yet
[15:08:08] <stpeter> I need to read it, too
[15:08:31] <Kev> Ok, shall we have a non-quorumed meeting?
[15:08:38] <stpeter> or a non-meeting?
[15:08:43] <Kev> So at least we can discuss stuff usefully, even if not pass votes.
[15:08:44] <MattJ> Fine by me :)
[15:08:48] <stpeter> sure
[15:09:09] <stpeter> we'll just have a friendly chat
[15:09:11] <Kev> I'll send out minutes afterwards :)
[15:09:14] <stpeter> heh
[15:09:16] <Kev> Of of the friendly chat :)
[15:09:16] <MattJ> We actually wait for votes from people not at the meeting anyway
[15:09:19] <Florob> Doesn't Jingle Nodes have a "external homepage"?
[15:09:26] <stpeter> Florob: yes
[15:09:30] <Kev> MattJ: Yes, but we can't start the vote period until a meeting happens.
[15:09:35] <MattJ> Florob, gah, you're right :)
[15:09:41] <MattJ> Maybe this is a trend
[15:09:50] <Kev> Right, so we can skip the Roll Call, and probably the Agenda bashing.
[15:10:00] <Kev> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hashes.html
[15:10:15] <Kev> I'm fine with the idea of this, and the implementation, except that section 4 (update namespaces) is wrong.
[15:10:31] <stpeter> Kev: how do you think we should handle the namespace versioning?
[15:10:34] <Kev> The namespace should only be updated if there's an incompatible schema change (or usage change).
[15:11:02] <Kev> Else we have the situation like:
[15:11:54] <Kev> md5 is MAY, SHA1 SHA2 are MUST. SHA3 comes out and the XEP then becomes the same but with SHA3 as MUST (for example).
[15:12:20] <Kev> Now someone who implemented it yesterday is unable to interop with someone implementing it tomorrow, even though they support several MTI hashes in common.
[15:12:48] <Kev> (Because the namespace has changed)
[15:12:58] <stpeter> right
[15:13:17] <stpeter> one question is: do we need a way to discover which hashes the other party supports?
[15:13:27] <Kev> So I think you use the hashes you support, and if the other side supports them great, otherwise you can't interop.
[15:13:41] <stpeter> I might agree that changing the namespace might not be the best way to perform that discovery
[15:13:44] <Kev> stpeter: Is the assumption that you only send one negotiated hash, or that you send those you support?
[15:13:56] <stpeter> Kev: it might depend on the protocol
[15:14:00] <Kev> I was assuming you'd send those hashes you support.
[15:14:19] <Kev> Maximum interop, for not a huge amount of overhead (unless we start talking about supporting hundreds of hashes).
[15:14:38] <MattJ> Yeah, discovery brings just a small optimisation (which may not actually be worth it in some cases)
[15:14:45] <stpeter> sure, but why eat of processor time to generate hashes that the other party doesn't support? (e.g., in file transfer)
[15:14:57] <stpeter> s/of/up/
[15:15:05] <Kev> (This is notable not suitable if you're doing something like password hashing, where having multiple is a vulnerability, of course).
[15:15:13] <Kev> stpeter: Right, in that case we probably want negotiation.
[15:15:19] <Kev> Well, I say negotiation.
[15:15:22] <Kev> I mean caps.
[15:15:43] <stpeter> so if I want to send you a bunch of large-ish files, I don't want to figure a checksum for SHA1, SHA2, and SHA3
[15:15:48] <Kev> Right.
[15:15:55] <stpeter> so discovery might be good
[15:15:57] <stpeter> but
[15:16:02] <stpeter> we don't need a namespace change to do that
[15:16:05] <Kev> So I have sha1, sha2 in my caps. You know what I support, pick the one that suits you best, use it.
[15:16:08] <Kev> Right.
[15:16:15] *** Zash has joined the room
[15:16:17] <stpeter> we could have separate disco features
[15:16:18] <Kev> So I think we add discovery, and remove namespace changes.
[15:16:24] <stpeter> that would work for me
[15:16:33] <MattJ> +1
[15:16:47] <Kev> Great.
[15:16:53] <MattJ> I have a small proposal, but I haven't thought it out yet
[15:16:55] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:16:56] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:17:12] <stpeter> MattJ: proposal for...?
[15:17:20] <MattJ> This XEP
[15:17:21] <MattJ> Just typing :)
[15:17:32] <stpeter> heh ok
[15:17:34] <MattJ> (if only we had a way of transmitting my text as I typed...)
[15:17:47] <Kev> Yes, that could get hilarious in MUCs :)
[15:17:53] <MattJ> Instead of a <hash> element for each algorithm, what if that element contained all the algorithms?
[15:17:54] <Kev> 85 in MUCs would be sensible, though.
[15:17:57] <Kev> Maybe Swift should start doing that.
[15:18:08] <MattJ> Kev, it should - I'm pestering for Gajim support
[15:18:13] <MattJ> A number of clients are doing it now
[15:18:21] <MattJ> (finally)
[15:18:30] <MattJ> Maybe an example of my hash idea would be clearer
[15:18:55] <stpeter> MattJ: that might be fine, yes
[15:19:02] <MattJ> <hash xmlns='urn:xmpp:hashes:0'>
<algo type='sha-256'>2XarmwTlNxDAMkvymloX3S5+VbylNrJt/l5QyPa+YoU=</algo>
</hash>
[15:19:05] <MattJ> or something like that
[15:19:08] <stpeter> nod
[15:19:21] <Kev> Isn't that what we have now?
[15:19:24] <Kev> 'now'
[15:19:27] <stpeter> :)
[15:19:30] <MattJ> It's not so different really, except in the implementation you just have to iterate over the child elements of a single tag
[15:19:40] <Kev> Oh, I see.
[15:19:51] <MattJ> rather than cherry-pick all elements with the hashes namespace from amidst the rest
[15:19:51] <Kev> Right, that's neater if you have multiple hashes, yes.
[15:20:02] <Kev> Right, although your library's going to be doing that for you.
[15:20:03] <MattJ> Yeah, sorry, I'm lazy :)
[15:20:03] <stpeter> you say potayto, I say potahto
[15:20:20] <MattJ> Kev, depends how high-level it is, also - I write the library, so no it isn't :)
[15:20:21] *stpeter nods
[15:20:32] <stpeter> I like that a bit better
[15:21:09] <stpeter> so I'll make version 0.0.2
[15:21:13] <MattJ> Thanks
[15:21:13] <Kev> Thanks Peter.
[15:21:22] <Kev> So, has anyone read any of http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/realtimetext.html ?
[15:21:53] <Kev> I have a longish list of issues with it, but I don't think they're sufficiently fundamental to block publication - and it's written like a XEP now, mostly, which makes life much better.
[15:21:59] <MattJ> Not the new version in detail, and I'm not sure I'm capable right now
[15:22:07] <stpeter> I haven't done so
[15:22:15] <MattJ> It didn't make me go "aargh" like the first one did though
[15:22:40] <Kev> :)
[15:22:45] <stpeter> heh
[15:23:08] <MattJ> If you're happy with publication then I probably am too, but I'll take time this week to review it and put my thoughts on-list (assuming we won't vote until next meeting?)
[15:23:18] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:23:21] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:23:23] <stpeter> I'll do the same
[15:23:36] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:23:39] <Kev> We can't vote until next meeting, indeed.
[15:23:46] <Kev> I'll post my thoughts to the list in advance.
[15:24:18] <stpeter> excellent
[15:25:31] <stpeter> any other non-business for discussion in this non-meeting? ;-)
[15:25:36] <stpeter> I just updated XEP-0233
[15:25:47] <stpeter> and I poke some SASL people about reviewing it
[15:25:51] <stpeter> poked, that is
[15:25:51] <Kev> Not according to the agenda.
[15:26:03] <Kev> Unless someone else has something.
[15:26:10] <stpeter> so I might request a Last Call about that one before long
[15:26:21] <MattJ> iirc I read an email where stpeter said we could discuss something at the meeting
[15:26:25] *MattJ tries to find it
[15:26:28] <stpeter> yes
[15:26:31] <stpeter> file transfer
[15:26:47] <stpeter> if we plug this hashes stuff into XEP-0234, then 260 and 261 are left waiting
[15:26:55] <MattJ> Ah, ok
[15:26:59] <stpeter> so I wonder if it makes sense to take care of those first
[15:27:07] <stpeter> we said we'd bundle them with 234
[15:27:07] *** bear has left the room
[15:27:13] <stpeter> but they're basically done, I think
[15:27:32] *** bear has joined the room
[15:27:45] <stpeter> something to discuss next time, I suppose
[15:27:57] <stpeter> shall we schedule the next meeting?
[15:28:16] <Kev> Next Wednesday, presumably.
[15:28:51] <MattJ> Fine with me
[15:28:51] <stpeter> WFM
[15:29:02] <Kev> Righty.
[15:30:06] *stpeter updates the hashes spec and adds Matthew and Kev as authors
[15:30:33] <Kev> Aww shucks.
[15:31:15] <Kev> (And thanks)
[15:31:21] <stpeter> :)
[15:31:24] <Kev> Righty, I guess we're done with the non-meeting, then.
[15:31:47] <stpeter> yep
[15:31:52] *stpeter updates the calendar
[15:31:56] <Kev> Thanks.
[15:32:02] <Kev> And thanks both for turning up!
[15:32:18] <stpeter> we're here for you!
[15:32:25] <MattJ> Heh, thanks :)
[15:33:18] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[15:38:15] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[15:38:21] *** Florob shows as "online"
[15:38:45] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:39:58] <stpeter> hmm
[15:40:16] <stpeter> it would be handy to reference hash algorithms like this... urn:iana:hash-function-text-names:sha-256
[15:40:30] <stpeter> but there is no urn:iana:* namespace
[15:40:33] *stpeter contacts IANA
[15:43:40] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:49:40] *** petermount has left the room
[15:49:51] <Kev> Faux-minutes sent!
[15:50:18] *** Zash has left the room
[15:50:54] <MattJ> :)
[15:52:43] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[15:54:10] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:54:12] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:54:50] <Kev> And that's RTT notes sent out.
[15:55:00] <MattJ> Thanks
[15:57:48] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:03:27] *** tuomas has left the room
[16:04:08] <stpeter> and hashes 0.0.2 checked into git :)
[16:04:44] <Kev> Thanks.
[16:04:58] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hashes.html
[16:05:47] <Kev> Brief scan looks good to me.
[16:06:08] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:07:07] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:07:11] <stpeter> I've poked IANA about setting up a urn:iana namespace so that we don't have to manage a separate set of disco features in the urn:xmpp tree for cryptographic hashes (although I don't see any great harm in doing so)
[16:07:48] <stpeter> bbiab
[16:14:09] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[16:14:51] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:15:42] *** MisterKanister shows as "away"
[16:17:34] *** Florob shows as "online"
[16:19:40] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:20:43] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[16:27:47] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:29:09] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:39:48] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:40:53] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:42:13] *** Florob has left the room
[16:44:58] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:46:02] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:50:42] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[17:10:39] *** MisterKanister has left the room
[17:18:16] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:23:18] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[17:31:21] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:33:47] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[17:39:08] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[18:00:57] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[18:02:24] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:06:31] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:20:17] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:21:01] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:33:21] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:34:39] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "running an errand, bbiab"
[19:03:02] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:11:23] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[19:18:23] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:07:11] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:31:27] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:39:20] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is "dodo"
[20:45:06] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:45:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[20:50:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:00:38] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:01:44] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:01:59] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:02:56] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "bbiaf"
[21:07:58] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:17:01] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:35:46] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:36:01] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:48:54] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:52:59] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:52:59] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[22:14:27] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:55:43] *** MattJ has left the room
[22:55:49] *** stpeter has left the room