Wednesday, June 20, 2012
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

[00:59:36] *** m&m has joined the room
[01:36:41] *** m&m has left the room
[04:35:16] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[04:37:03] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[06:36:48] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[07:19:59] *** Tobias has joined the room
[07:20:01] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:07:00] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:28:09] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:28:10] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:09:09] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is "mange"
[10:23:34] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[11:26:33] *** Tobias has left the room
[12:05:39] *** Tobias has joined the room
[12:05:40] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:20:49] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[13:21:52] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[13:39:50] *** m&m has joined the room
[14:05:42] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:18:16] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:18:30] *** m&m shows as "online"
[14:31:49] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:37:40] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:44:30] *** m&m shows as "online"
[14:49:16] <m&m> T - 15
[14:51:04] <stpeter> indeed
[14:51:41] <stpeter> I see Ralph and Matthew online
[14:53:39] <m&m> T - 10
[14:54:39] *** MattJ has joined the room
[14:54:39] *stpeter sends invitations to Ralph and Matthew
[14:54:41] <stpeter> heh
[14:54:54] <MattJ> Merci stpeter
[14:55:49] *** Tobias has joined the room
[14:55:51] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:56:16] <stpeter> hi Tobi!
[14:56:29] *** ashward has joined the room
[14:56:38] <Tobias> hello
[14:57:10] <m&m> very good … we at least have quorum, assuming no one disappears in the next 7 minutes (-:
[14:57:13] <stpeter> ashward: howdy
[14:57:20] <ashward> Hello
[14:57:36] <stpeter> Ralph just went idle, but perhaps he'll return to whatever device he's using at the moment
[14:57:58] *stpeter notes that ashward is a co-author of the pubsub-labels proposal
[14:58:52] *** m&m has left the room
[14:58:52] <ashward> It's my first XEP I've written, so be nice :)
[14:58:57] <stpeter> heh
[14:59:06] *** m&m has joined the room
[14:59:14] <stpeter> m&m: hardware problems? ;-)
[14:59:24] <m&m> no … pebkac
[15:01:05] <Tobias> PbuSb :D
[15:01:27] <m&m> (-:
[15:01:42] <Tobias> that'd be hard to pronounce
[15:01:48] <m&m> Tuesday nights to Wednesday mornings are tough for me (-:
[15:03:13] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council"
[15:04:48] *** ralphm_ has joined the room
[15:04:59] *MattJ is nearly here
[15:05:00] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:05:00] <m&m> we have a Ralph, and just in time!
[15:05:01] <ralphm> hi!
[15:05:07] *m&m bangs gavel
[15:05:12] <m&m> 0) Roll Call
[15:05:19] <m&m> yo es presente
[15:05:24] <Tobias> here
[15:05:46] <m&m> MattJ and ralphm?
[15:06:14] *** Tobias shows as "dnd" and his status message is "council meeting"
[15:06:38] *m&m gets minutes prepped
[15:06:45] <ralphm> yes, I'm still here
[15:07:11] <m&m> thank you, and we'll assume the same from MattJ
[15:07:20] <m&m> 1) XEP-0047 - Advance to Final?
[15:07:25] <Tobias> +1
[15:07:45] <ralphm> +1
[15:07:46] <MattJ> I'm here
[15:08:15] <MattJ> Is this +1 for a last call, or did we have that?
[15:08:30] <MattJ> (or do we need another?)
[15:08:38] <m&m> we already had LC, with one minor correction
[15:08:54] <MattJ> The data length? I'm not convinced (either way) of how minor that is
[15:09:11] <ralphm> the LC was in May and earlier this month
[15:09:35] <m&m> there was a correction
[15:09:36] <stpeter> actually the LC was in February or so but it took a while for me to reply to the feedback :)
[15:09:41] <m&m> (-:
[15:09:50] <ralphm> eh, right
[15:09:57] <MattJ> That's fine
[15:09:59] <m&m> anyway, if we'd rather re-issue LC, that's fine with me
[15:10:14] <MattJ> Well I agree with the new text
[15:10:30] <ralphm> MattJ: do you have any instructions for such an LC?
[15:10:33] <MattJ> The old text was unclear, so... let's just go +1
[15:10:56] <m&m> and I'm +1
[15:10:59] <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
[15:11:12] <ralphm> Kev to vote on list
[15:11:16] <m&m> yup
[15:11:44] <m&m> 2) XEP-0191 - Accept rev 1.2?
[15:11:56] <MattJ> stpeter, the old text definitely leant towards post-encoded data (even if that wasn't intentional)
[15:12:14] <MattJ> I suspect (but have no data to go on) that most implementations don't enforce it, so it doesn't matter
[15:12:23] <ralphm> +1 on XEP-0191
[15:12:34] <stpeter> MattJ: yes it did, but The Implementers Have Spoken™
[15:12:57] <m&m> that was my take … at least a couple of implementors spoke up
[15:12:58] <MattJ> Not all, but I guess as many as shall
[15:13:04] *** ashward shows as "online"
[15:13:14] <m&m> if we wait for all, no draft would go final
[15:13:18] <Tobias> +1 for 191
[15:13:18] <ralphm> 100% is unattainable, of course
[15:13:26] <MattJ> I'll vote on-list for 191
[15:13:33] <MattJ> I haven't read all the new text
[15:13:48] <ralphm> MattJ: there isn't much, just a reshuffle and rename
[15:13:48] <m&m> anyway, +1 on −191 … the only "significant" change is a reorganization
[15:14:12] <stpeter> right
[15:14:25] <ralphm> you can do it in parallel while we move on
[15:14:32] <m&m> 3) inbox: Data Forms XML Element
[15:14:40] <ralphm> I don't like this
[15:14:51] <Tobias> ralphm, what don't you like about it?
[15:14:59] <MattJ> ralphm, I have another meeting overrunning in parallel :)
[15:15:16] <m&m> ouch
[15:15:17] <stpeter> heh
[15:15:25] <m&m> well, there are obvious problems with the draft, IMO
[15:15:33] <m&m> such as <xml/> is not a well-formed element
[15:15:34] <ralphm> Well, I'd rather have the XML outside of the form
[15:15:52] <MattJ> Outside?
[15:15:58] <stpeter> m&m: yes, noted on the standards@ list
[15:16:06] <ralphm> the reasoning comes back to a discussion I had with Blaine Cook years ago
[15:16:10] <ralphm> on pubsub+atom
[15:16:24] <Tobias> outside and then referencing it from withing the form?
[15:16:25] <m&m> ralphm: are you −1 on this?
[15:16:36] <m&m> I'm −1 until the obvious flaws are fixed
[15:16:43] *stpeter looks forward to hearing the story about Blaine :)
[15:16:52] *MattJ too
[15:17:01] <m&m> heh
[15:17:05] <Tobias> well... m&m's argument of xml being not well-formed is enough for a -1 from me
[15:17:11] <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/>
[15:17:29] <ralphm> Tobias: if referencing is not too hard, I'd prefer that, yes
[15:17:30] <m&m> it's all about context
[15:17:45] <m&m> ralphm: will you post a rejection reply on the list?
[15:18:04] <ralphm> m&m: In most cases, parsing messages requires looking at the whole stanza anyway
[15:18:09] <Tobias> ralphm, if we define clear and specific rules for referencing sure, that'd be fine
[15:18:34] <stpeter> m&m: IMHO it's more about having a discussion than sending a rejection :)
[15:18:45] <m&m> fair enough (-:
[15:18:53] <m&m> s/rejection/obections/
[15:18:59] <ralphm> stpeter: indeed. sorry I didn't make that clear
[15:19:03] <m&m> I realized it was the wrong word the moment I hit <ENTER>
[15:19:09] <ralphm> I'm +1 on publishing
[15:19:12] <stpeter> ralphm: it was clear to me
[15:19:35] <m&m> ok, then I'll send the objections email
[15:19:56] <ralphm> (to stay consistent with all the XEPs I've not objected to during my terms, haha)
[15:19:59] <m&m> there's a couple of other things that bother me, but I'm not sure they're worth holding up the proposal
[15:20:25] *** ashward has left the room
[15:20:28] <stpeter> Sergey and I had a long discussion about it on the standards@ list but no one else participated IIRC
[15:20:29] <m&m> 4) inbox: Security Labels in PubSub (or PbuSb)
[15:20:41] <ralphm> stpeter: I'll look that up
[15:21:24] <ralphm> I'd like to postpone my vote on this
[15:21:31] <ralphm> wait
[15:21:34] <ralphm> +1 on publishing
[15:21:39] <ralphm> but I want to read it still
[15:21:40] <m&m> so, I'm +1 on publishing
[15:21:46] <MattJ> I'll vote on-list
[15:21:53] <m&m> but I implore the authors to rethink some of their normative language (-:
[15:21:55] <Tobias> haven't read it yet...will vote on list for this one
[15:21:59] <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)
[15:22:07] <m&m> there's an awful lot of SHOULD, and I think they ought to be MUSTs
[15:22:53] <ralphm> stpeter: yeah, they are all still marked as unread
[15:22:57] <stpeter> :)
[15:23:26] <m&m> heh
[15:24:03] <stpeter> truth be told I haven't looked at the labels spec yet either, all I did was publish it to the inbox :(
[15:24:15] <m&m> remember you have one fortnight to raise objections before auto publish!
[15:24:39] *stpeter loads http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-labels.html in a tab
[15:24:41] <m&m> I've glanced at it, but I have the same general policy as ralphm (-:
[15:24:59] <m&m> as long as there's no obvious faults, I'm fine publishing a 0.1
[15:25:07] <m&m> ok
[15:25:13] <m&m> 5) date of next meeting
[15:25:16] <m&m> SBTSBC?
[15:25:26] <ralphm> +1
[15:25:30] <Tobias> +1
[15:25:39] <stpeter> yes, that's already in the calendar
[15:25:49] <m&m> I'll note that 7/4 is a US holiday, and I will not be able to make that meeting
[15:25:54] <m&m> but I'm good with next week
[15:25:55] <ralphm> although I might not make it
[15:26:03] <m&m> noted
[15:26:23] <ralphm> I'll be in SF on 7/4 and 7/11
[15:26:37] <MattJ> +1 to next week
[15:26:40] <m&m> very nice
[15:26:48] <m&m> 6) AOB?
[15:27:02] <Tobias> not from me
[15:27:06] <MattJ> This might be more applicable for when Kev is here
[15:27:28] <MattJ> But I wanted to check we are all in agreement about the change I'm making to stanza forwarding
[15:27:30] <stpeter> someone from the "U.S. Access Board" sent me an email message late yesterday asking when XEP-0301 will be done :)
[15:27:41] <m&m> haha
[15:27:53] <m&m> MattJ: ??
[15:27:55] <MattJ> Specifically making the <forward/> a child of the using protocol
[15:28:05] <m&m> oh, I'm ok with that
[15:28:10] <MattJ> this means backwards-incompatible changes to MAM and Carbons
[15:28:11] <MattJ> Ok, fine
[15:28:19] <MattJ> I'm planning to push those in the next couple of days
[15:28:20] <m&m> well, they are EXPERIMENTAL
[15:28:36] <Tobias> stpeter, what's the US Acess Board?
[15:28:36] <m&m> very good
[15:29:21] <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/"
[15:29:29] <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
[15:29:34] <m&m> it would help with e2e
[15:29:39] <Tobias> ahh
[15:30:31] <m&m> in e2e, I build up a <forwarded/>, then encode UTF-8 to encrypt
[15:31:14] <m&m> that all gets wrapped in a <e2e/> element
[15:31:37] <m&m> anyway, I look forward to forwarded (-:
[15:31:42] <m&m> anybody else?
[15:32:10] <m&m> going once
[15:32:26] <m&m> going twice
[15:32:36] <m&m> done!
[15:32:42] *m&m bangs gavel
[15:32:46] <m&m> thanks everyone!
[15:33:07] <ashward> Thanks all!
[15:33:14] <m&m> I'll get minutes out before the end of the day MDT
[15:33:21] <stpeter> thanks to m&m for chairing
[15:33:26] <MattJ> +1
[15:33:38] <stpeter> ashward: so we'll all review the spec again and discuss next Wednesday
[15:33:53] <ashward> Excellent :)
[15:34:10] <m&m> at this point, if no one objects by 7/4, it gets published
[15:34:17] <stpeter> yep
[15:34:35] <m&m> I'll send my objections to XML data element later today, too
[15:34:41] *m&m goes off to next meeting
[15:34:49] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[15:34:50] <stpeter> m&m: no need, I think
[15:34:58] <stpeter> m&m: that might be piling on at this point :)
[15:35:05] <stpeter> oh
[15:35:11] <stpeter> I meant <xml/> itself
[15:35:15] <m&m> yes
[15:35:15] <stpeter> not the general concept
[15:35:16] <stpeter> sorry
[15:35:19] <m&m> (-:
[15:41:37] *** ashward has left the room
[16:01:00] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:08:53] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[16:18:20] *** m&m shows as "online"
[16:18:53] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[16:32:41] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:34:57] *** m&m shows as "online"
[16:38:23] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:43:43] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[16:50:46] <m&m> could someone remind me the URL for council logs
[16:51:02] <Tobias> see topic
[16:51:17] <m&m> yeah, this client sucks and I can't /-:
[16:51:20] <Tobias> http://www.mauldineconomics.com/
[16:51:26] <Tobias> wrong link
[16:51:29] <MattJ> XMPP Council Room | http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/ | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/
[16:51:30] <m&m> (-:
[16:51:36] <Tobias> Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/
[16:51:39] <m&m> grazé
[16:51:49] <Tobias> my client doesn't allow copying directly from subject line
[16:51:54] <Tobias> *topic
[16:52:15] <m&m> my client displayed it in the chat view, but I cleared it since then
[16:53:43] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[16:59:16] <stpeter> it's a shame that so few clients show the room subject
[16:59:37] <m&m> Yes. Yes it is
[17:10:49] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is "mange"
[17:24:33] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:25:18] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:29:34] *** m&m shows as "online"
[17:30:44] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[17:38:36] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:41:12] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:46:14] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:46:44] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:07:44] *** MattJ has left the room
[18:08:00] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:31:38] *** m&m shows as "online"
[18:31:42] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:32:05] *** m&m shows as "online"
[18:33:48] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:50:37] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:51:47] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:53:35] *** Kev has joined the room
[18:53:43] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:58:38] <Kev> We show it, at least. Just copying it doesn't work. Someone should probably fix that.
[18:59:21] <ralphm> Gajim shows it
[18:59:31] <ralphm> allows copying, too
[19:00:13] <ralphm> Let's make it mandatory in our next client certification
[19:00:21] *** Kev has left the room
[19:00:59] <Tobias> but only for the advanced client profile
[19:01:53] <stpeter> I'm not convinced about the necessity for software certifications -- do people actually use them?
[19:02:56] <ralphm> Oh, did I forgot to add the sarcasmicon *again*?
[19:03:05] <stpeter> ;-)
[19:04:17] <Tobias> it's a nice starting place for client and server devs starting new implementations...but aside of that i don't know
[19:19:58] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:28:47] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:41:36] *** m&m shows as "online"
[19:43:02] <m&m> fscking rfc format
[19:43:15] <ralphm> heh
[19:43:30] <stpeter> m&m: problems?
[19:43:41] <m&m> running into line length problems
[19:43:46] <stpeter> in examples?
[19:43:49] <m&m> yeah
[19:43:53] *m&m goes to fixing
[19:43:55] *stpeter nods
[19:44:00] <ralphm> does the RFC format also still require pure ASCII?
[19:44:13] <m&m> I wouldn't be so bad if it weren't huge blobs of Base64-encoded data
[19:44:17] <m&m> ralphm: yes
[19:44:19] <stpeter> as the canonical output format, yes
[19:44:24] <stpeter> there's work happening to change that
[19:44:27] <stpeter> but it's slow :)
[19:44:33] <ralphm> you don't say
[19:44:43] <ralphm> so one day, your name can be on them properly
[19:44:43] <m&m> there's an XML format for input, but the RFC editor requires ASCII when submitting
[19:44:53] <m&m> and with much trolling
[19:45:22] *stpeter happens to be on the RFC Series Advisory Group ... http://www.rfc-editor.org/RSAG.html
[19:46:04] <ralphm> stpeter: a good start would be to have your name listed properly on that page
[19:46:10] <ralphm> haha
[19:46:16] <stpeter> yeah, I just noticed that
[19:46:30] <stpeter> it could be worse
[19:48:15] <stpeter> and hey, I work on Wyknoop Street, too ;-)
[19:48:35] <m&m> that error just won't go away 9-:
[19:48:45] <stpeter> I'm stamping it out everywhere I can
[19:48:57] <stpeter> clearly I fat-fingered it once and I'm still paying the price
[19:49:02] *m&m makes sure his I-Ds reference it correctly
[19:49:33] <m&m> we need to have a PbuSb service for that (-:
[19:50:35] <stpeter> ;-)
[19:51:44] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[19:52:47] <m&m> hrm
[19:53:01] <m&m> I wrote a spec on encrypting, but did not talk really about decrypting
[19:53:09] <stpeter> heh
[19:53:19] <stpeter> there's a long thread about that on the cryptography list
[19:53:28] <stpeter> but I've just been deleting all the messages
[19:53:35] <stpeter> "Encryption Without Decryption" :)
[19:54:08] <m&m> well, there are several modes of operation that use the encryption algorithm, but not the decryption algorithm (-:
[19:54:56] <m&m> OFB, CFB, CTR
[20:01:44] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[20:04:25] *stpeter having finished one deliverable, decides to dive into some spec about XMPP federation
[20:05:14] *m&m continues reformatting spec on XMPP e2e
[20:14:03] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:17:32] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:19:30] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:20:30] <ralphm> m&m: I was glad to find that error, only people aware of the street and Dutchmen would notice.
[20:20:41] <m&m> (-:
[20:21:25] <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!
[20:21:44] <ralphm> yeah
[20:21:56] *stpeter wanders off for tea
[20:22:08] <m&m> mmmm …. that's a good idea
[20:22:15] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[20:22:25] <ralphm> I once read that most people can read text where the inner chars of words are hussled
[20:27:32] <stpeter> yes, I have heard simliar reprots
[20:27:39] *** m&m shows as "online"
[20:27:53] <m&m> dammit
[20:28:22] <stpeter> m&m: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5785/
[20:28:37] <m&m> I didn't notice the misspelling until the third time looking at that chat (-:
[20:29:27] <ralphm> m&m: we're That Good™
[20:30:53] <m&m> is it bad that I type and say "ought" instead of "SHOULD" (or that I always want to capitalize SHOULD, MUST, MAY)? (-:
[20:32:12] <stpeter> m&m: nowadays, I never use those keywords unless they are all caps -- instead I use "needs to", "ought to", "might", etc.
[20:32:28] <m&m> ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one
[20:33:06] <stpeter> I'm not saying you MUST do it that way, mind you ;-)
[20:33:24] <m&m> but I MAY if I so wish (-:
[20:33:45] <stpeter> indeed!
[20:34:09] <ralphm> at least that's what I RECOMMEND
[20:35:11] <m&m> ralphm: we SHOULD get together for drinks again
[20:37:58] <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.
[20:39:27] <m&m> (-:
[20:45:52] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:48:41] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:12:34] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:12:40] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:27:30] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[21:27:31] *** m&m shows as "online"
[21:32:34] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[21:32:35] *** m&m shows as "online"
[21:34:21] <stpeter> m&m: checked in the problem statement, at least it's a start
[21:35:14] <m&m> grazé
[21:40:15] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[21:49:02] *** m&m shows as "online"
[22:09:10] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:10:13] *** m&m shows as "online"
[22:31:08] *** stpeter has left the room
[22:34:05] *** m&m has left the room
[22:34:18] *** m&m has joined the room
[22:34:34] *** m&m has left the room
[23:04:11] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:24:20] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[23:25:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[23:36:42] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[23:37:58] *** ralphm shows as "online"