-
m&m
T - 15
-
stpeter
indeed
-
stpeter
I see Ralph and Matthew online
-
m&m
T - 10
- stpeter sends invitations to Ralph and Matthew
-
stpeter
heh
-
MattJ
Merci stpeter
-
stpeter
hi Tobi!
-
Tobias
hello
-
m&m
very good … we at least have quorum, assuming no one disappears in the next 7 minutes (-:
-
stpeter
ashward: howdy
-
ashward
Hello
-
stpeter
Ralph just went idle, but perhaps he'll return to whatever device he's using at the moment
- stpeter notes that ashward is a co-author of the pubsub-labels proposal
-
ashward
It's my first XEP I've written, so be nice :)
-
stpeter
heh
-
stpeter
m&m: hardware problems? ;-)
-
m&m
no … pebkac
-
Tobias
PbuSb :D
-
m&m
(-:
-
Tobias
that'd be hard to pronounce
-
m&m
Tuesday nights to Wednesday mornings are tough for me (-:
- MattJ is nearly here
-
m&m
we have a Ralph, and just in time!
-
ralphm
hi!
- m&m bangs gavel
-
m&m
0) Roll Call
-
m&m
yo es presente
-
Tobias
here
-
m&m
MattJ and ralphm?
- m&m gets minutes prepped
-
ralphm
yes, I'm still here
-
m&m
thank you, and we'll assume the same from MattJ
-
m&m
1) XEP-0047 - Advance to Final?
-
Tobias
+1
-
ralphm
+1
-
MattJ
I'm here
-
MattJ
Is this +1 for a last call, or did we have that?
-
MattJ
(or do we need another?)
-
m&m
we already had LC, with one minor correction
-
MattJ
The data length? I'm not convinced (either way) of how minor that is
-
ralphm
the LC was in May and earlier this month
-
m&m
there was a correction
-
stpeter
actually the LC was in February or so but it took a while for me to reply to the feedback :)
-
m&m
(-:
-
ralphm
eh, right
-
MattJ
That's fine
-
m&m
anyway, if we'd rather re-issue LC, that's fine with me
-
MattJ
Well I agree with the new text
-
ralphm
MattJ: do you have any instructions for such an LC?
-
MattJ
The old text was unclear, so... let's just go +1
-
m&m
and I'm +1
-
stpeter
IMHO it's not a significant enough change (more of a clarification) to justify another Last Call, but it's not a hill for me to die on
-
ralphm
Kev to vote on list
-
m&m
yup
-
m&m
2) XEP-0191 - Accept rev 1.2?
-
MattJ
stpeter, the old text definitely leant towards post-encoded data (even if that wasn't intentional)
-
MattJ
I suspect (but have no data to go on) that most implementations don't enforce it, so it doesn't matter
-
ralphm
+1 on XEP-0191
-
stpeter
MattJ: yes it did, but The Implementers Have Spoken™
-
m&m
that was my take … at least a couple of implementors spoke up
-
MattJ
Not all, but I guess as many as shall
-
m&m
if we wait for all, no draft would go final
-
Tobias
+1 for 191
-
ralphm
100% is unattainable, of course
-
MattJ
I'll vote on-list for 191
-
MattJ
I haven't read all the new text
-
ralphm
MattJ: there isn't much, just a reshuffle and rename
-
m&m
anyway, +1 on −191 … the only "significant" change is a reorganization
-
stpeter
right
-
ralphm
you can do it in parallel while we move on
-
m&m
3) inbox: Data Forms XML Element
-
ralphm
I don't like this
-
Tobias
ralphm, what don't you like about it?
-
MattJ
ralphm, I have another meeting overrunning in parallel :)
-
m&m
ouch
-
stpeter
heh
-
m&m
well, there are obvious problems with the draft, IMO
-
m&m
such as <xml/> is not a well-formed element
-
ralphm
Well, I'd rather have the XML outside of the form
-
MattJ
Outside?
-
stpeter
m&m: yes, noted on the standards@ list
-
ralphm
the reasoning comes back to a discussion I had with Blaine Cook years ago
-
ralphm
on pubsub+atom
-
Tobias
outside and then referencing it from withing the form?
-
m&m
ralphm: are you −1 on this?
-
m&m
I'm −1 until the obvious flaws are fixed
- stpeter looks forward to hearing the story about Blaine :)
- MattJ too
-
m&m
heh
-
Tobias
well... m&m's argument of xml being not well-formed is enough for a -1 from me
-
ralphm
when he was sending out Tweets over XMPP, he really disliked that an additional wrapper was required, even though existing clients might be able to consume the Atom payload as a direct child of <message/>
-
ralphm
Tobias: if referencing is not too hard, I'd prefer that, yes
-
m&m
it's all about context
-
m&m
ralphm: will you post a rejection reply on the list?
-
ralphm
m&m: In most cases, parsing messages requires looking at the whole stanza anyway
-
Tobias
ralphm, if we define clear and specific rules for referencing sure, that'd be fine
-
stpeter
m&m: IMHO it's more about having a discussion than sending a rejection :)
-
m&m
fair enough (-:
-
m&m
s/rejection/obections/
-
ralphm
stpeter: indeed. sorry I didn't make that clear
-
m&m
I realized it was the wrong word the moment I hit <ENTER>
-
ralphm
I'm +1 on publishing
-
stpeter
ralphm: it was clear to me
-
m&m
ok, then I'll send the objections email
-
ralphm
(to stay consistent with all the XEPs I've not objected to during my terms, haha)
-
m&m
there's a couple of other things that bother me, but I'm not sure they're worth holding up the proposal
-
stpeter
Sergey and I had a long discussion about it on the standards@ list but no one else participated IIRC
-
m&m
4) inbox: Security Labels in PubSub (or PbuSb)
-
ralphm
stpeter: I'll look that up
-
ralphm
I'd like to postpone my vote on this
-
ralphm
wait
-
ralphm
+1 on publishing
-
ralphm
but I want to read it still
-
m&m
so, I'm +1 on publishing
-
MattJ
I'll vote on-list
-
m&m
but I implore the authors to rethink some of their normative language (-:
-
Tobias
haven't read it yet...will vote on list for this one
-
stpeter
ralphm: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-June/026112.html is the most recent discussion (there were earlier messages, but I changed the subject)
-
m&m
there's an awful lot of SHOULD, and I think they ought to be MUSTs
-
ralphm
stpeter: yeah, they are all still marked as unread
-
stpeter
:)
-
m&m
heh
-
stpeter
truth be told I haven't looked at the labels spec yet either, all I did was publish it to the inbox :(
-
m&m
remember you have one fortnight to raise objections before auto publish!
- stpeter loads http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-labels.html in a tab
-
m&m
I've glanced at it, but I have the same general policy as ralphm (-:
-
m&m
as long as there's no obvious faults, I'm fine publishing a 0.1
-
m&m
ok
-
m&m
5) date of next meeting
-
m&m
SBTSBC?
-
ralphm
+1
-
Tobias
+1
-
stpeter
yes, that's already in the calendar
-
m&m
I'll note that 7/4 is a US holiday, and I will not be able to make that meeting
-
m&m
but I'm good with next week
-
ralphm
although I might not make it
-
m&m
noted
-
ralphm
I'll be in SF on 7/4 and 7/11
-
MattJ
+1 to next week
-
m&m
very nice
-
m&m
6) AOB?
-
Tobias
not from me
-
MattJ
This might be more applicable for when Kev is here
-
MattJ
But I wanted to check we are all in agreement about the change I'm making to stanza forwarding
-
stpeter
someone from the "U.S. Access Board" sent me an email message late yesterday asking when XEP-0301 will be done :)
-
m&m
haha
-
m&m
MattJ: ??
-
MattJ
Specifically making the <forward/> a child of the using protocol
-
m&m
oh, I'm ok with that
-
MattJ
this means backwards-incompatible changes to MAM and Carbons
-
MattJ
Ok, fine
-
MattJ
I'm planning to push those in the next couple of days
-
m&m
well, they are EXPERIMENTAL
-
Tobias
stpeter, what's the US Acess Board?
-
m&m
very good
-
stpeter
"The U.S. Access Board is an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities. As part of our agency mission, the Board develops and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and for electronic and information technology. http://www.access-board.gov/"
-
m&m
MattJ: the only thing I might ask is that I can use <forwarded/> "stand-alone" … ish, or at least not put too heavy a restriction on where it's placed
-
m&m
it would help with e2e
-
Tobias
ahh
-
m&m
in e2e, I build up a <forwarded/>, then encode UTF-8 to encrypt
-
m&m
that all gets wrapped in a <e2e/> element
-
m&m
anyway, I look forward to forwarded (-:
-
m&m
anybody else?
-
m&m
going once
-
m&m
going twice
-
m&m
done!
- m&m bangs gavel
-
m&m
thanks everyone!
-
ashward
Thanks all!
-
m&m
I'll get minutes out before the end of the day MDT
-
stpeter
thanks to m&m for chairing
-
MattJ
+1
-
stpeter
ashward: so we'll all review the spec again and discuss next Wednesday
-
ashward
Excellent :)
-
m&m
at this point, if no one objects by 7/4, it gets published
-
stpeter
yep
-
m&m
I'll send my objections to XML data element later today, too
- m&m goes off to next meeting
-
stpeter
m&m: no need, I think
-
stpeter
m&m: that might be piling on at this point :)
-
stpeter
oh
-
stpeter
I meant <xml/> itself
-
m&m
yes
-
stpeter
not the general concept
-
stpeter
sorry
-
m&m
(-:
-
m&m
could someone remind me the URL for council logs
-
Tobias
see topic
-
m&m
yeah, this client sucks and I can't /-:
-
Tobias
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/
-
Tobias
wrong link
-
MattJ
XMPP Council Room | http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/ | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/
-
m&m
(-:
-
Tobias
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/
-
m&m
grazé
-
Tobias
my client doesn't allow copying directly from subject line
-
Tobias
*topic
-
m&m
my client displayed it in the chat view, but I cleared it since then
-
stpeter
it's a shame that so few clients show the room subject
-
m&m
Yes. Yes it is
-
Kev
We show it, at least. Just copying it doesn't work. Someone should probably fix that.
-
ralphm
Gajim shows it
-
ralphm
allows copying, too
-
ralphm
Let's make it mandatory in our next client certification
-
Tobias
but only for the advanced client profile
-
stpeter
I'm not convinced about the necessity for software certifications -- do people actually use them?
-
ralphm
Oh, did I forgot to add the sarcasmicon *again*?
-
stpeter
;-)
-
Tobias
it's a nice starting place for client and server devs starting new implementations...but aside of that i don't know
-
m&m
fscking rfc format
-
ralphm
heh
-
stpeter
m&m: problems?
-
m&m
running into line length problems
-
stpeter
in examples?
-
m&m
yeah
- m&m goes to fixing
- stpeter nods
-
ralphm
does the RFC format also still require pure ASCII?
-
m&m
I wouldn't be so bad if it weren't huge blobs of Base64-encoded data
-
m&m
ralphm: yes
-
stpeter
as the canonical output format, yes
-
stpeter
there's work happening to change that
-
stpeter
but it's slow :)
-
ralphm
you don't say
-
ralphm
so one day, your name can be on them properly
-
m&m
there's an XML format for input, but the RFC editor requires ASCII when submitting
-
m&m
and with much trolling
- stpeter happens to be on the RFC Series Advisory Group ... http://www.rfc-editor.org/RSAG.html
-
ralphm
stpeter: a good start would be to have your name listed properly on that page
-
ralphm
haha
-
stpeter
yeah, I just noticed that
-
stpeter
it could be worse
-
stpeter
and hey, I work on Wyknoop Street, too ;-)
-
m&m
that error just won't go away 9-:
-
stpeter
I'm stamping it out everywhere I can
-
stpeter
clearly I fat-fingered it once and I'm still paying the price
- m&m makes sure his I-Ds reference it correctly
-
m&m
we need to have a PbuSb service for that (-:
-
stpeter
;-)
-
m&m
hrm
-
m&m
I wrote a spec on encrypting, but did not talk really about decrypting
-
stpeter
heh
-
stpeter
there's a long thread about that on the cryptography list
-
stpeter
but I've just been deleting all the messages
-
stpeter
"Encryption Without Decryption" :)
-
m&m
well, there are several modes of operation that use the encryption algorithm, but not the decryption algorithm (-:
-
m&m
OFB, CFB, CTR
- stpeter having finished one deliverable, decides to dive into some spec about XMPP federation
- m&m continues reformatting spec on XMPP e2e
-
ralphm
m&m: I was glad to find that error, only people aware of the street and Dutchmen would notice.
-
m&m
(-:
-
m&m
ralphm: but since it contains the same number of characters, and starts and ends with the correct characters, many people would miss it!
-
ralphm
yeah
- stpeter wanders off for tea
-
m&m
mmmm …. that's a good idea
-
ralphm
I once read that most people can read text where the inner chars of words are hussled
-
stpeter
yes, I have heard simliar reprots
-
m&m
dammit
-
stpeter
m&m: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5785/
-
m&m
I didn't notice the misspelling until the third time looking at that chat (-:
-
ralphm
m&m: we're That Good™
-
m&m
is it bad that I type and say "ought" instead of "SHOULD" (or that I always want to capitalize SHOULD, MUST, MAY)? (-:
-
stpeter
m&m: nowadays, I never use those keywords unless they are all caps -- instead I use "needs to", "ought to", "might", etc.
-
m&m
ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one
-
stpeter
I'm not saying you MUST do it that way, mind you ;-)
-
m&m
but I MAY if I so wish (-:
-
stpeter
indeed!
-
ralphm
at least that's what I RECOMMEND
-
m&m
ralphm: we SHOULD get together for drinks again
-
ralphm
m&w: when we get together, we SHALL do that. I'm going to mention to my coworkers that it is RECOMMENDED I go to Portland in October.
-
m&m
(-:
-
stpeter
m&m: checked in the problem statement, at least it's a start
-
m&m
grazé