Wednesday, November 09, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
November
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

[09:00:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:16:56] *** ralphm has left the room
[14:44:35] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:16:39] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:21:12] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:21:19] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:22:40] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:27:36] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:00:26] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:05:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:22:20] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:28:08] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[16:53:54] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[17:15:28] *** Zash has joined the room
[17:15:28] *** Zash shows as "online"
[17:40:50] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:45:05] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[18:06:05] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:06:44] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[18:10:16] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:12:27] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:13:56] *** Zash shows as "away"
[18:15:41] *** Zash shows as "online"
[18:22:31] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:25:19] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:27:40] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:41:58] *** Florob has joined the room
[18:59:49] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:02:55] *** MattJ has joined the room
[19:15:21] *** MattJ shows as "online" and his status message is "Council reading"
[19:24:16] *** Florob has left the room
[19:26:07] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Council reading (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:36:07] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Council reading (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:46:19] *** MattJ shows as "online" and his status message is "Council reading"
[19:50:13] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:51:55] *** Florob has joined the room
[20:00:04] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[20:00:30] *** Florob shows as "online"
[20:03:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[20:06:50] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[20:07:32] *** Florob shows as "online"
[20:14:01] *** Florob has left the room
[20:14:03] *** Florob has joined the room
[20:14:06] *** Florob shows as "online"
[20:16:05] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:16:57] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:27:28] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[20:27:38] *** Florob shows as "online"
[20:31:57] *** dwd has joined the room
[20:39:51] *MattJ needs to implement POKE so someone can wake him if he falls asleep during the meeting
[20:40:46] <stpeter> :)
[20:41:00] <linuxwolf> step 1: build a robot
[20:41:07] <MattJ> Accomplished
[20:41:10] <Kev> Right, I'm here now, let's see if I can remember to be here in 20 minutes. I'd completely forgotten until I sat down at my machine.
[20:41:18] <linuxwolf> heh
[20:41:26] <MattJ> Kev, don't worry, I'm here trying to read XEPs and stay awake
[20:41:55] <Kev> I managed to read them earlier.
[20:44:51] <stpeter> MattJ: those will put you to sleep!
[20:45:08] <MattJ> Indeed they are
[20:45:21] <MattJ> It's been a long day
[20:46:14] <dwd> MattJ, I think you'll find the days are actually getting quite short, now.
[20:46:29] <MattJ> Longer and longer for me
[20:46:40] <dwd> MattJ, Are you moving close to the speed of light?
[20:46:56] <MattJ> Working on it
[20:47:10] <MattJ> I feel like I've been fired through a collider if that's what you're wondering
[20:47:25] <linuxwolf> I think the constants of time won't be applying to me for the rest of the year
[20:47:37] <dwd> I misread that as colander.
[20:47:45] <linuxwolf> haha
[20:47:50] <dwd> Assumed that MattJ was feeling drained.
[20:47:51] <Kev> The colander of time?
[20:47:55] <dwd> Or perhaps strained.
[20:48:13] <dwd> It just opens up a whole vein of bad puns, doesn't it?
[20:48:28] <linuxwolf> Yes. Yes it does.
[20:49:00] *MattJ groans
[20:49:25] *dwd feels *so* proud.
[20:49:36] <stpeter> yay, got my inbox under 1500 messages
[20:49:52] <MattJ> dwd, for a series of puns based on something I didn't say? :)
[20:49:53] <linuxwolf> did you unsub from 82attendees@ietf.org? (-;
[20:50:00] <MattJ> dwd, your standards are slipping
[20:50:02] <dwd> stpeter, Unrecoverable storage failure?
[20:50:32] <dwd> MattJ, These are my standards, and if you don't like them, I have others.
[20:50:40] <stpeter> dwd: I wish
[20:53:07] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[21:01:02] <stpeter> I do see Ralph online, shall I ping him?
[21:01:11] <Kev> Can do, I did so a couple of minutes ago.
[21:01:21] <stpeter> ok
[21:01:42] *** ralphm has joined the room
[21:01:46] <Kev> Hola.
[21:01:56] <Kev> Right, are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
[21:02:09] <Kev> 1) Call for assorted baked products.
[21:02:11] <Kev> I'm here.
[21:02:30] *MattJ took a moment to figure that out
[21:02:41] <linuxwolf> 目前
[21:02:44] <MattJ> I'm here, in body at least
[21:02:51] <stpeter> linuxwolf: nice!
[21:03:13] <Kev> And assuming Ralph's join indicates he's here, let's continue.
[21:03:17] <Kev> 2) Account management.
[21:03:27] <ralphm> I'm couch surfing
[21:03:37] <Kev> We said we'd ~vote on accepting this once we'd had community feedback and the author had responded.
[21:04:08] <Kev> I saw a number of comments suggesting this was not the right approach, and I don't remember any in support of it; is that about right?
[21:04:19] <linuxwolf> correct
[21:04:34] <linuxwolf> even a call to move (part of) this to another venue
[21:04:51] <Kev> For my part, I've got two main concerns with it:
[21:05:10] <Kev> 1) Using stream features for this is Wrong.
2) The XSF can't be the appropriate place to develop a new security model.
[21:05:17] <linuxwolf> /nod
[21:05:42] <stpeter> #2 is rather significant
[21:05:54] <Kev> I might be persuaded to let it through if just 1) was the problem, but when 2) is in the same document, I don't think we can even put it on the vine.
[21:06:09] <linuxwolf> my thoughts exactly
[21:06:10] <MattJ> I think that makes sense
[21:06:23] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council Meeting"
[21:06:40] <ralphm> I agree
[21:06:55] <MattJ> If we're going to rework all the clients and servers to use a new IBR protocol (when the current one is working ok for most purposes) then we should make sure we go about it properly
[21:06:56] *** Tobias has joined the room
[21:06:56] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[21:07:09] <ralphm> we can use security models or promote the development of them
[21:07:20] <ralphm> but we need Those Guys™
[21:07:27] <Kev> So I think my suggestions for the author are to
1) look at a more appropriate way of managing user accounts than stream features (the suggestion of first binding with ANONYMOUS and then doing something quite like iq:register sounds right to me).
2) Look at getting the new security model standardised through the IETF, so a XEP can work off the base of people who know more about this than the XSF.
[21:08:08] <Kev> I'll write a mail saying as much when I do the minutes.
[21:08:14] <Kev> I'm reading this as everyone being -1, is that correct?
[21:08:15] <linuxwolf> /agreed
[21:08:38] <MattJ> +1 2 -1
[21:08:53] <MattJ> (I know, I'm approaching dwd's standards)
[21:09:03] <Kev> That's asserting that dwd *has* standards...
[21:09:07] <MattJ> True
[21:09:23] <Kev> Moving on then.
[21:09:27] <Kev> 3) XEP-0258
[21:09:39] <Kev> Kurt's updated this, and would like us to vote on moving it to Draft
[21:09:41] <MattJ> You need to include names :)
[21:09:43] <MattJ> Oh, yes
[21:09:50] <Kev> (Although he made it clear he only wanted it voted on if the vote was going to pass it :))
[21:09:51] <ralphm> Kev aw!
[21:10:06] <MattJ> Kev, oh, that's that then... :)
[21:10:26] <linuxwolf> I guess he doesn't play the lottery much (-;
[21:10:47] <MattJ> Well, it all seems fine to me... I don't know the current implementation status of the new version though
[21:10:54] <Kev> Anyway, we've got this implemented in Swift, and the other we have this implemented in M-Link.
[21:10:58] <dwd> linuxwolf, He does, he only plays if he's certain to win, though.
[21:11:00] <MattJ> Ok
[21:11:03] <Kev> And it seems to work ok.
[21:11:14] <dwd> Kev, Two implementations, strangely, for Gajim.
[21:11:17] <MattJ> Well I'm +1 to draft
[21:11:37] <Kev> (So I'm +1)
[21:11:39] <Kev> linuxwolf / ralphm?
[21:11:45] <dwd> Kev, Also Prosody server-side. RUmour of another XEP-0258 client or two soon, as well.
[21:12:20] <ralphm> surprising
[21:12:20] <ralphm> .
[21:12:31] <ralphm> hmm, major lag for some reason
[21:12:36] <MattJ> wfm
[21:12:36] <ralphm> I am +1
[21:12:37] <linuxwolf> I'm tempted to vote −1 on the principle of risk assessment (-:
[21:12:40] <linuxwolf> but I am +1
[21:12:50] <Kev> Marvellous.
[21:12:56] <Kev> 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/correction.html
[21:13:01] <MattJ> +1
[21:13:06] <linuxwolf> I'll give Kurt a stern look next time I see him
[21:13:20] <Kev> (I'm in favour, natch)
[21:13:26] <MattJ> A XEP by any other name would be the same protocol, FWIW
[21:13:55] <ralphm> apparently dwd had such a nightmare on this he couldn't articulate it
[21:13:55] <Kev> MattJ: Right, I think we can quibble about names when it's on the vine.
[21:14:04] <linuxwolf> I am still concerned about the change of any arbitrary past message
[21:14:15] <Kev> linuxwolf: Which is why it says not to do that.
[21:14:33] <dwd> ralphm, Only with changing arbitrary past messages.
[21:14:41] <ralphm> I think it is a terrible feature for recognise that some people want it and don't object to the spec being experimental
[21:15:03] <ralphm> dwd: I forgot my sarcasmicon again?!
[21:15:06] <linuxwolf> wow…lag and burst
[21:15:14] <Kev> For those not keeping up, this version (unlike the version I put up an age ago) is correcting the most recent message only :)
[21:15:32] <linuxwolf> I've no objections to publishing
[21:15:33] <stpeter> noted :)
[21:15:52] <Kev> Excellent.
[21:16:13] <Kev> 5) The bas64 stuff in XEP9.
[21:16:15] <Kev> I'm +1
[21:16:16] <linuxwolf> but I don't see text saying a client MUST NOT correct a message that is not it's own
[21:16:20] <ralphm> +1
[21:16:34] <ralphm> linuxwolf: wait what?
[21:16:38] <Kev> linuxwolf: Ok, I'm happy to tidy that up. It explicitly says that you send this to correct the most recently sent message.
[21:16:38] <linuxwolf> lag
[21:16:43] <linuxwolf> gawdamit
[21:17:06] <ralphm> linuxwolf: how would that work anyway?
[21:17:18] <linuxwolf> I'll save any further comments until I see xep-correct on the list (-:
[21:17:33] <linuxwolf> re XEP-009 … +1
[21:18:10] <MattJ> +1
[21:18:28] <MattJ> I somehow missed Kev's two XEP-0009 messages
[21:18:45] <MattJ> I thought linuxwolf's lag was going into reverse
[21:18:45] <Kev> 6) XEP-0068 v1.2
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1
[21:18:46] <linuxwolf> mindlag (-:
[21:19:10] <MattJ> Wait, where did this come from? :)
[21:19:22] <Kev> So, I missed the RFC leading up to this, and I don't really like it, so I need to go do some list reading, I think.
[21:19:32] <ralphm> heh
[21:19:34] <stpeter> no hurry
[21:19:49] <ralphm> I did read it, and this would be a possible conclusion
[21:20:20] <stpeter> see http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-October/025341.html
[21:20:25] <MattJ> It's an RFC already? Or still a draft?
[21:20:25] <stpeter> etc.
[21:20:26] <Kev> I'd like to just pass this off to the next Council instead.
[21:20:30] <ralphm> I'm still wondering about suggesting a way to avoid conflict (in case no registration takes place), in the distributed extensibility sense
[21:20:31] <stpeter> Kev: sure
[21:20:34] <Kev> MattJ: I use the common term, not the right term :)
[21:20:40] <MattJ> Ok :)
[21:20:57] <MattJ> I thought stpeter might be fast-tracking his own documents for a moment :)
[21:20:58] <stpeter> MattJ: should go to Working Group Last Call at the IETF a few weeks from now, I'd expect
[21:21:29] <Kev> 7 http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-unique.html
[21:21:31] <stpeter> as I said, no hurry
[21:21:42] <MattJ> Sigh, I'm still torn on this...
[21:21:49] <linuxwolf> I'm ambivalent
[21:22:07] <MattJ> I guess I think overall it should be published, mainly because it already has implementations
[21:22:10] <ralphm> I did like the suggestion of something like clark's notation, not the one form to rule them all
[21:22:17] <MattJ> A kind of non-historical historical
[21:22:36] <linuxwolf> right
[21:22:58] <Kev> So, are we publishing?
[21:23:00] <MattJ> Nobody has to use or implement it if they don't want to
[21:23:07] <MattJ> But people have
[21:23:10] <ralphm> MattJ: are those implementation using that unauthorized namespace?
[21:23:11] <MattJ> So yes, publish
[21:23:32] <MattJ> The what what?
[21:23:52] <ralphm> http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#unique
[21:23:57] <linuxwolf> no objections to publishing
[21:24:08] <MattJ> ralphm, why is it unauthorized?
[21:24:34] <MattJ> Prosody uses 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#unique' it seems, yes
[21:24:55] <ralphm> because, you know, it isn't a XEP yet, it is a new namespace and we use different ones now?
[21:25:08] <Kev> ralphm: It is a XEP, it's in XEP-0045.
[21:25:11] <ralphm> just asking. If there already is deployment, well, yeah
[21:25:22] <Kev> This is splitting it out.
[21:25:24] <MattJ> Well, that's my point about it being semi-historical
[21:25:25] <stpeter> we're just moving things around
[21:25:30] <Kev> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#schemas-unique
[21:25:44] <Kev> Five minutes to go and lots still to do. I don't want the last meeting of term running over!
[21:25:49] <ralphm> erm, I missed that, sorry
[21:25:49] <Kev> ralphm: Are you ok on publishing?
[21:25:55] <ralphm> +1 then
[21:25:58] <Kev> Excellent.
[21:25:59] <linuxwolf> pubit!
[21:26:14] <Kev> 8) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html
[21:26:23] <ralphm> we need more of those!
[21:26:31] <ralphm> distribute them all
[21:26:38] <MattJ> I haven't submitted mine yet!
[21:26:43] <linuxwolf> DISTRIBUTE ALL THE THINGS!
[21:26:45] <Kev> This is an odd one. It seems to be taking the approach from FMUC, including copy/pasting blocks of the text from FMUC, but trying to publish it under a new author, with slightly different syntax.
[21:26:52] <ralphm> mattj: we'll reserve dmuc4 for you!
[21:26:58] <MattJ> Thank you
[21:26:59] *** Florob shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[21:27:11] <MattJ> I heard my next door neighbour wants to submit one too
[21:27:13] <stpeter> Kev: yeah, I think the author might want to simply post to the list -- perhaps it didn't even belong in the inbox
[21:27:15] <MattJ> Can he have dmuc5?
[21:27:27] <linuxwolf> focus please
[21:27:37] <MattJ> linuxwolf, I'm focusing hard
[21:27:38] <ralphm> Kev: can't we suggest he works with the fmuc people?
[21:27:47] <Kev> ralphm: We can, that's me.
[21:27:55] <linuxwolf> (-:
[21:28:06] <ralphm> Kev: I know, this is you other hat, you know?
[21:28:08] <Kev> But I don't mind this going onto the vine, we've got 3 other variants up there already :)
[21:28:25] <ralphm> well, if it is mostly a copy I'm -1
[21:28:42] <Kev> ralphm: I think you should decide for yourself rather than using my biased summary :)
[21:28:45] <MattJ> Same, but I haven't read it, so if it's any more complicated I'm voting on list
[21:28:52] <MattJ> I'll vote on list
[21:29:00] <Kev> Ok, let's leave this clean and just leave it for the next Council, then.
[21:29:08] <ralphm> Kev: that was my plan
[21:29:09] <Kev> Rather than having the confusion of voting crossing the term end.
[21:29:14] <MattJ> Good point
[21:29:29] <Kev> I think that's everything, so:
[21:29:34] <Kev> 9) Thanks folks.
[21:29:45] <ralphm> And thank you, Kev for chairing
[21:29:46] <Kev> Thanks all for the hard work.
[21:30:06] <MattJ> Thank you :)
[21:30:09] <stpeter> hear hear!
[21:30:10] <MattJ> 20s left
[21:30:17] <Kev> 10) Any other business
[21:30:21] <ralphm> beers, fireworks
[21:30:23] <Kev> (Lasting less than 10 seconds)
[21:30:25] <MattJ> None
[21:30:31] <linuxwolf> nay
[21:30:40] <dwd> Oh, one more thing
[21:30:45] <ralphm> :-D
[21:30:47] <dwd> Why do these meetings take so long?
[21:30:53] *linuxwolf shoots evil eye @ dwd
[21:30:58] *dwd cackles.
[21:31:00] <Kev> 11) Fini.
[21:31:03] <linuxwolf> 再见
[21:31:13] <Kev> Thanks folks, see you on the lists, good luck to the next Council.
[21:31:20] <MattJ> +1
[21:31:27] <stpeter> thanks indeed
[21:31:44] <Kev> I will sort out minutes, but not tonight.
[21:31:46] <linuxwolf> 谢谢大家
[21:32:08] <MattJ> Oh yes, thanks for humouring me with the late meeting :)
[21:32:12] <ralphm> linuxwolf: care to translate?
[21:32:21] <linuxwolf> thank you to everyone?
[21:32:32] <linuxwolf> practicing my copy/paste Chinese (-:
[21:32:34] <ralphm> MattJ: It's ok! I will now go sleep
[21:32:40] <MattJ> linuxwolf, with a question mark because you're not quite sure? :)
[21:32:43] <MattJ> 'night ralphm :)
[21:32:44] *stpeter goes back to reviewing IRI WG issues
[21:32:51] <linuxwolf> MattJ: precisely
[21:32:57] <MattJ> stpeter, some people get all the fun
[21:32:59] <ralphm> IRItating?
[21:33:05] *linuxwolf goes to read more JOSE drafts
[21:34:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[21:34:16] <stpeter> enjoy :)
[21:34:40] <linuxwolf> I kinda wish it was called JOES
[21:34:44] <linuxwolf> (-:<
[21:35:48] <ralphm> linuxwolf: just buy some stickers
[21:36:04] <ralphm> use funky fonts
[21:36:12] <ralphm> ...
[21:36:15] <ralphm> profit!
[21:36:15] <linuxwolf> heh
[21:36:37] <linuxwolf> maybe I can get ekr to raise a "point of order" on the WG name (-:
[21:36:58] *** Florob shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[21:38:36] *** MattJ shows as "xa"
[21:39:01] <ralphm> I'm sure you could
[21:39:14] <ralphm> should be fun
[21:40:16] <linuxwolf> /nod
[21:43:59] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[21:48:32] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:48:38] *** Florob shows as "online"
[21:49:33] *** Florob has left the room
[21:58:08] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:58:32] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:00:15] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:02:40] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:06:53] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:08:40] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:12:48] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[22:12:52] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:14:26] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:16:47] *** ralphm has left the room
[22:20:31] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:24:18] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:25:50] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:40:09] *** Zash shows as "away"
[22:56:05] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[23:04:41] *** MattJ has left the room
[23:09:17] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:19:17] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[23:23:32] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[23:24:36] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:41:33] *** dwd shows as "online"
[23:57:54] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"