XSF logo XMPP Council - 2013-02-27


  1. m&m has joined
  2. m&m is there a council meeting tomorrow?
  3. m&m from the logs, it looks like there is
  4. Tobias has left
  5. m&m has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. Tobias has joined
  8. m&m has joined
  9. m&m has left
  10. stpeter updates the calendar to reflect tomorrow's meetings
  11. stpeter done (board too)
  12. stpeter has left
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. Kev Sorry, I've been unwell. I think I'll be able to do Council later, but if I don't make it - apologies.
  16. Tobias Get well.
  17. Tobias if it helps your condition there are somd patches to review ^^
  18. Tobias bbl
  19. Tobias has left
  20. Tobias has joined
  21. Tobias has left
  22. Tobias has joined
  23. Tobias has left
  24. Tobias has joined
  25. Tobias has left
  26. m&m has joined
  27. Kev Ah. I guess I should have sent out an agenda.
  28. m&m (-:
  29. stpeter has joined
  30. Kev Righty.
  31. Kev I've poked Ralph.
  32. Tobias k
  33. MattJ Present
  34. Kev 1) Roll call
  35. Tobias here
  36. Kev -1 to MattJ for top-posting :)
  37. ralphm has joined
  38. MattJ :P
  39. m&m haha
  40. m&m presente
  41. stpeter sort of here :-)
  42. ralphm Present. And what Kev said
  43. MattJ I was pipelining
  44. Tobias haha
  45. MattJ +1
  46. Kev 2) Move for MattJ to buy cakes for everyone
  47. m&m +1
  48. ralphm +1
  49. Tobias +1
  50. Kev +1
  51. m&m don't forget international shipping costs!
  52. Kev :D
  53. Kev 2b) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/last-seen-online.html Accept as Experimental?
  54. Kanchil Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/last-seen-online.html: XEP-XXXX: Last Presence using Delayed Delivery
  55. Tobias +1, typo fixes will follow when it's in the repo
  56. m&m no objections
  57. Kev Minor issue in that it's not legal by 6121 :p
  58. Kev Clients can't send probes.
  59. Tobias who are you , the XMPP police?
  60. Tobias Kev, is that a MUST NOT or a SHOULD NOT?
  61. Kev SHOULD
  62. Tobias SHOULD was allowed when there one knows what one is doing, right?
  63. ralphm I was just looking at that indeed
  64. Kev "Presence probes SHOULD NOT be sent by a client, because in general a client will not need to send them since the task of gathering presence from a user's contacts is managed by the user's server. However, if a user's client generates an outbound presence probe then the user's server SHOULD route the probe (if the contact is at another server) or process the probe (if the contact is at the same server) and MUST NOT use its receipt of the presence probe from a connected client as the sole cause for returning a stanza or stream error to the client."
  65. stpeter arguably that would be more appropriate as an "ought not"
  66. ralphm process the probe is a problem
  67. ralphm for this protocol
  68. Kev ralphm: Is it?
  69. m&m I think this protocol is legal for the letter of 6121
  70. ralphm You don't want any caching or whatever here.
  71. m&m it might not fit the spirit
  72. ralphm by the server, when responding to the probe
  73. ralphm (if it processes it)
  74. m&m ralphm: if I (linuxwolf@outer-planes.net) probe my wife (wifey@outer-planes.net), why would it send a probe?
  75. m&m [note: one of those is not a real jid]
  76. Kev Because it has no sense of personal boundaries.
  77. Kev You didn't want a serious answer, right? :p
  78. Kev Anyway, I'm not opposed to pushing it to Experimental, but might need more persuading that it's good to go to Draft.
  79. m&m well, I kind of wanted to prove a point about users on the same server, but whatever (-:
  80. ralphm m&m: you might be right, never mind then
  81. ralphm not opposed
  82. m&m the server's going to cache some stuff, or it would be constantly probing connected clients
  83. ralphm right
  84. Kev MattJ: ?
  85. m&m personally, I'm ok with this, but an explanation of why it bends the SHOULD NOT from 6121
  86. m&m and maybe a discussion on performance and security ramifications
  87. Tobias will add a sentence or two for that
  88. ralphm but wait
  89. ralphm this is about the uptime of servers and components
  90. Kev Yes.
  91. Tobias ralphm, also
  92. ralphm those are not really bound by 6121 are they?
  93. Kev ralphm: The client is bound by not doing things that 6121 tells it not to.
  94. ralphm hm yeah
  95. Kev I think MattJ's wandered off, so...
  96. Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/last-user-in-presence.html
  97. Kanchil Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/last-user-in-presence.html: XEP-XXXX: Last User Interaction in Presence
  98. m&m I still say run it up the flag pole and see who salutes
  99. ralphm I guess we wanted to discourage to avoid presence probe storms
  100. Kev m&m: Yes, I agree.
  101. stpeter in 6121bis I'll change that to "there's really no reason for the client to send probes, because the server does that on its behalf" :P
  102. Kev OK.
  103. Kev I'm +1 on (3).
  104. ralphm Not opposed
  105. MattJ I'm +1 on (2) and (3)
  106. m&m other than the illegal protocol, I've no objections
  107. Tobias +1
  108. Tobias m&m, illegal protocol?
  109. Kev show>available?
  110. m&m ("available" is not one of the enumerated show values)
  111. Tobias yeah..typos
  112. Tobias will fix those
  113. ralphm hehe
  114. m&m (-:
  115. Tobias i falsely expected the IETF to publish consistent documents ^^
  116. m&m next thing you know, he's introduce <presence type='available'/>, or even <presence type='invisible'/> (-:
  117. m&m Tobias: pffth
  118. ralphm <priority>-128</priority>
  119. Kev I think that's all of us.
  120. m&m <priority>65356</priority>
  121. Kev I've got a 0.2 of 308 waiting for our esteemed Editor to publish :)
  122. stpeter oh yeah
  123. m&m yay!
  124. stpeter I saw that
  125. stpeter processes
  126. Kev I don't really think the LC feedback was substantive enough to justify a second LC for that.
  127. Kev 4) Do we need another LC for 308?
  128. Kev I think it was pretty much a tightening of language and adding detail so it's not worth it.
  129. Kev But we can issue another LC if people want.
  130. MattJ Is there a diff somewhere?
  131. m&m I think you're right, but I'd like to see the diff first
  132. Tobias MattJ, the diff tool should be working again
  133. Kev http://gitorious.org/xmpp/xmpp/commit/3a09ba0ef53087de391985bd9439b8df60840a25/diffs/e68bc9404d260908b9f9c9060f5a4413cbdf9b7f
  134. Kanchil Kev: http://gitorious.org/xmpp/xmpp/commit/3a09ba0ef53087de391985bd9439b8df60840a25/diffs/e68bc9404d260908b9f9c9060f5a4413cbdf9b7f: Gitorious
  135. ralphm Kanchil: so helpful
  136. Kev Yeah. Sometimes that feature's handy. Other times, not so much.
  137. ralphm I like the namespace registration bit change, THIS PROTOXEP
  138. Kev So, shall we issue another LC, or vote on moving this to draft next meeting?
  139. m&m I need time to read it
  140. MattJ LGTM
  141. MattJ I'm fine with delaying, no need to rush it now
  142. Kev m&m: I'm not asking you to vote now, only if we should plan to LC it or plan to vote on it for next meeting.
  143. Kev But we can delay that too if you want.
  144. m&m I understand that, but I kind of wanted to peruse it before deciding (-:
  145. Kev Tell you what - I'll shove a vote on Draft to the next agenda unless you get in touch to say we need another LC instead.
  146. m&m we could just declare the vote starts meeting, and I could −1 if I really object
  147. m&m wfm
  148. Kev OK.
  149. Kev 5) Date of next.
  150. Kev Next week?
  151. ralphm +1
  152. Kev IETF is the one after, right?
  153. m&m I'm not available
  154. m&m IETF is the week after, I was taking a short holiday immediately preceding
  155. Kev OK. So three weeks, then?
  156. Tobias next week wfm
  157. Kev Tobias: Do keep up, 007.
  158. ralphm I am good for any week for the forseeable future
  159. Tobias Kev, will do
  160. Kev Let's do three weeks today, then, when Matt and Peter will be recovered from the IETF :)
  161. stpeter wfm
  162. Tobias k
  163. m&m heh, "recovered"
  164. m&m wfm
  165. ralphm i.e. until I have found a new gig
  166. Kev m&m: Repossessed? :p
  167. ralphm heh, I'm sure IETF does need recovery time
  168. stpeter checks http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0308/diff/0.1/vs/0.2
  169. Kev 6) AOB?
  170. Tobias stpeter, don't do that
  171. Tobias here: what about deprecating XEP-0012? any requirements for this? should any of the new XEPs have a note about it or so?
  172. Tobias stpeter, seems to work now..strange...didn't work a minute agao
  173. stpeter Tobias: so I noticed
  174. Kev Tobias: I don't think we do anything about it until the new ones are more mature.
  175. stpeter nods to Kev
  176. Tobias Kev, oki dokey
  177. m&m exactly
  178. Kev Although you can add notes saying "Intend to ..." to the new ones if you want.
  179. m&m the others need to get to draft first, I think
  180. Tobias m&m, ah..good to know
  181. stpeter Kev: XEP-0308 updated
  182. m&m w00t
  183. stpeter brb
  184. Kev stpeter: Ta muchly.
  185. Kev No AOB?
  186. m&m none from me
  187. m&m and stpeter wandered away irl
  188. Tobias mine was just answered
  189. Kev Longest Council meeting for ages, nearly the full 30 mins!
  190. Kev Right, we're done.
  191. Tobias 28 on my clock
  192. Kev Thanks all :)
  193. Kev bangs the gavel
  194. Tobias yay
  195. Tobias thank you
  196. Kev returns to convalescing :)
  197. Tobias picks up a dict
  198. stpeter so March 20 for the next meeting, right?
  199. Kev Sounds about right.
  200. Kev goes to check
  201. Kev Yes, March 20th.
  202. stpeter calendar updated
  203. ralphm yay
  204. ralphm the start of spring
  205. stpeter North America will be on Daylight Saving Time by then, I think
  206. ralphm yes
  207. ralphm and europe not
  208. stpeter so we yanks will try not to get confused
  209. Kev 31st March the Council times will change :D
  210. Tobias UTC FTW :)
  211. Kev (Which is when GB changes)
  212. Tobias don't know when DE changes, but my clock will probably tell me
  213. ralphm all of europe changes at the same time
  214. Tobias ralphm, really? didn't know that
  215. stpeter it's be awfully confusing otherwise
  216. Tobias stpeter, that hasn't stopped civilisation from doing so anyway
  217. ralphm Tobias: yes. In fact where the UK changes at 01:00, CET changes at 02:00 and so on
  218. Tobias has left
  219. m&m has left
  220. m&m has joined
  221. Tobias has joined
  222. m&m has left
  223. m&m has joined
  224. Dave Cridland has joined
  225. Dave Cridland has left
  226. m&m has left
  227. m&m has joined
  228. bear has left
  229. bear has joined
  230. stpeter has left
  231. m&m has left
  232. Tobias has left
  233. Tobias has joined