XMPP Council - 2011-08-17

greetings

Goeiemiddag!

:)

Afternoon.

heh

I'm the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team :)

I am doing a release

Wonderful.

We're all at the top of our game then :)

heh

(-:

MattJ's on his way.

1) Roll call.

I'm here.

presente

Me too!

Fritzy sent apologies.

yep, saw that

Righty, I'll assume ralphm's still here.

2) Agenda bashing^w^w http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0260.html - move to draft?

We've still not got much feedback on this, but I think we've probably got all we're likely to now.

/nod

yes

Yeah, I'm prepared to +1 it

Without invoking thumbscrews, anyway.

:)

It's always an option ;)

heh

+1, btw

+1

I'd like to give it a once-through, which I didn't have a chance to do today as I'd planned, so I expect to vote onlist tomorrow or thereabouts.

Depending how fun work is.

Kev: thanks

We'll be waiting for Nathan's vote anyway, so hopefully I'm not holding things up.

3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html - move to draft?

Same applies from me.

+1 also

Ditto

+1

MattJ: what does "Ditto" mean for you?

"as above"

his above, or yours? (-:

stpeter, same again

4) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/quickstart.html to experimental

+1 here, although we can shave a bit more off.

MattJ: does "Ditto" mean "It's always an option ;)" for XEP-0261, too? or is that +1 to both? :)

I'm +1 on quickstart

Kev: yes, that was a rough "think piece" -- it needs polishing for sure

stpeter, it's +1, with linuxwolf and Kev (provisionally)

I had notes on the XEPs, but they're on my PC at home, I may be able to get hold of them this week

ralphm: Quickstart?

ok

+1

But as I recall it was mostly editorial (and I think they may have been long fixed)

MattJ: Quickstart?

there seems to be some room for improvement according to some

Quickstart... +1 for acceptance

ralphm: Always :)

5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mucstatus.html - Experimental?

I haven't read the ML threads on it at all, but I think it's a good start

+1 from me.

+1 too

+1. I was wondering if a new namespace is needed but other than that, yay?

+1 also

Fab.

ralphm: you think we could use an existing namespace?

6) Roadmap for the rest of the session.

n/m

stpeter: I believe the conditions would only be used in muc#user

I'm not sure what point us having a roadmap serves, really - we'll vote on whatever the XEP Editor puts in front of us :)

haha

stpeter: What were you thinking of?

so we could maybe just make <conditions/> and its childs part of that namespace

"what were you thinking?!" :)

Kev: is there anything we'd like to push toward finishing? personally I'd like to at least get the MUC edits done

Well, as a personal roadmap I still want to get archiving officially submitted

I'd like to get the MUC edits done, it'd be satisfying end.

I don't think it's far off, I just need to schedule some weekend time to see it through

MattJ: cool

Maybe I should get XEP-Correct submitted, it's been deployed for ages now.

ages?

Kev: and Kurt's security labels stuff perhaps

/nod

Tobias, internet ages :)

Labels are probably ready to advance, yeah.

ie. weeks

Months!

*gasp*

focus

Does anyone have the official end of term date to hand?

Kev: we don't know quite yet, depends on election schedule -- I'd think mid-October

OK.

it's the meeting before counil/board elections? (-:

ok, those seem like good priorities

I'm going to be wanting to miss three sessions starting 31st August, I think.

s/sessions/meetings/

ok

Ah, ouch, perhaps me too...

Well, starting a little later

eek

Tobias: when you're finish with GSoC, perhaps we can try to finish off XEP-0234, too

+ed

sure

I need to look at a calendar, but I don't know if I'll have internet for a couple of weeks from 8th September

So perhaps we'll have a couple of weeks off around the start of September, and come back to hurriedly vote everything through at the end of Sept / start of Aug.

MattJ: ok

right

I rather likely shall, but... just in case

Kev: you mean start of Oct

linuxwolf: Very probably.

BTW I finished with XEP-0045 yesterday -- I'll start poking people for reviews

For me, having Jingle and MUC progress seems reasonable for this term

haha

Righty.

that's all from me

7) Next meeting

Next Wed?

wfm

WFM

oh, I do have an AOB (-:

aw, man!

MattJ / ralphm: next Wed?

+1

+1

8) AOB.

sheesh, next Wed is August 24th already?!?

I know :/

yup

time flies

anyhow...

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/keepalive.html

we never did promote this or otherwise

~I was told a million times of all the troubles in my way...

ah yes, I chuckle everytime I see this one

not that it is bad, by the way. Just all that added protocol for sending around whitespace

/shrug

I am +1 on making this experimental

Part of me thinks we should scrap the negotiation and just leave it up to deployments (which is how it is done now)

MattJ: the trick is in-office vs. mobile vs...

I suppose one could run a set of connection managers in the "bad" places and another for the rest of us… (-:

I don't think the case is very different, especially when 198 is in play

A dropped connection is a dropped connection

So, shall we treat this as a ~vote?

I'm not strictly against throwing this up as experimental.

I'm not particularly in favour of it either.

Me neither

Who said we need to be more accepting? :)

heh

or was it more rejecting?

linuxwolf: So what's your position?

I don't have strong feelings about this one -- we'll see if there's energy and interest

Ok, then publish it as experimental and we'll see how it fares

I'm +1 to experimental

I see no reason not to, and that's enough for me

I don't see a technical reason to block it, so I'm not.

that's that then

OK, I guess we should leave it a fortnight for Fritzy to comment or such, given that this fell through the gaps.

Thanks linuxwolf for reviving it :)

Or 10 days, or whatever period we decided was right.

this was first published a month ago

what linuxwolf syas

technically, we're well past that

and I don't think it counts as a DNV

and we did discuss it then, too

What did we conclude, then?

nobody objected so nobody objecte

d

exactly

(-:

I had remembered discussing it, was surprised it hadn't been actioned (yay, verbs)

haha

I don't remember what we said at the time, though.

In any case, we're done unless someone else has OB.

none of us present objected

Fritzy had yet to comment

and I think Ralphm joined too late to say something (-:

Righty.

sigh, I have another conference call after this one :)

Yes, publish, then.

OK, I'm not hearing any other business, so thanks all.

none from me

heh

Kev: would you like to buy a "b"?

:)

oy vey

:)

Now, one more meeting before I can sleep...

bbl

thanks, guys

on MUC finishing: wasn't there a discussion sometime back on using SASL for logging into protected rooms instead of specifying the plain text password?

Tobias: There was a discussion, yes.

Kev, but nothing came out of it, right?

Right.

I think that would be an extension

I wrote an email about it at least but the feedback wasn't great :)

yeah...just came to mind while working on something

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/remote-auth.html

in fact more than an email :)

feedback is welcome

ok, let me review the meeting log here and see what action items are required of the Editor :)

well, apparently we need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in, so no actions for me

stpeter: actually, no, we're not waiting for fritzy (-:

we had already discussed keepalive at the 7/20 meeting, with no objections from that session

s/session/meeting/

we're already well past the "no objections" time set by XEP 1

hmm, yes, linuxwolf is right about the keepalive spec