XSF logo XMPP Council - 2013-05-22


  1. m&m has joined
  2. m&m has left
  3. m&m has joined
  4. bear has left
  5. m&m has left
  6. m&m has joined
  7. m&m has left
  8. m&m has joined
  9. m&m has left
  10. Neustradamus has left
  11. Neustradamus has joined
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. Tobias has left
  16. Tobias has joined
  17. Tobias has left
  18. Tobias has joined
  19. Neustradamus has left
  20. Tobias has left
  21. Tobias has joined
  22. Kev has left
  23. Kev has left
  24. m&m has joined
  25. Tobias has left
  26. Tobias has joined
  27. Kev has left
  28. ralphm has joined
  29. ralphm waves
  30. Tobias hi ralphm
  31. stpeter has joined
  32. m&m hola
  33. jabberjocke has joined
  34. Lance has joined
  35. stpeter la la la
  36. Kev has joined
  37. Kev One more minute.
  38. Kev I'm going to quickly wash my hands, and then will be here!
  39. Kev Right. I'm here.
  40. Kev 1) Roll call.
  41. m&m presente
  42. Tobias here
  43. ralphm ping
  44. Kev I've poked MattJ.
  45. MattJ has joined
  46. Kev And he's on his way, excellent.
  47. MattJ and he's here
  48. Kev Magic.
  49. Kev So I think our only item for today is the one from list.
  50. Tobias yay
  51. Kev 2) Last call for Real Time Text?
  52. Kev The amount of AOLing on the list was a little distracting.
  53. Peter Waher has joined
  54. Tobias AOLing?
  55. Kev "Me too"
  56. m&m yeah
  57. Tobias ahh
  58. Kev Posts just agreeing with the person above, without adding anything to the discussion.
  59. stpeter m2
  60. MattJ Heh
  61. Peter Waher Hello. Present if anybody has questions
  62. Kev Anyway.
  63. m&m +1 to last call … and not simply to make the m2's stop!
  64. MattJ I'm +1 to LC
  65. Kev I'm not opposed to LCing it.
  66. Tobias is that somehow related to AOL corp?
  67. Kev Tobias: Users in the early days of AOL.
  68. MattJ Tobias, yes
  69. Tobias i'm +1 on the LC
  70. Tobias ahh
  71. ralphm +1
  72. Kev I think that's everyone.
  73. Kev I think I still owe some votes from last meeting, but are there any other voting items for this week that I've missed?
  74. ralphm Not opposed to the previous items.
  75. Kev I didn't notice any other mails fly by (although having had a week off in which I genuinely didn't open my XMPP or mail client all holiday, I might be missing one).
  76. stpeter Kev: good for you!
  77. Tobias i've just send my remaining vote to the list
  78. Kev It was quite remarkable :)
  79. stpeter heh
  80. Kev First time in 9 years that I've done it.
  81. Kev Personal and work email ignored!
  82. Kev Anyway.
  83. Kev If there's nothing else new, I think we're on to 3) Date of next.
  84. Lance Kev: There was http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jidprep.html that I submitted a while ago that needs to go on the docket
  85. Kanchil Lance: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jidprep.html: XEP-xxxx: JID Prep
  86. m&m re: Date of next meeting — next week works for me
  87. Kev Ah, thanks.
  88. Kev 3) JIDPrep.
  89. ralphm I want to, again, express my regret towards the removal of federation in Google Hangouts.
  90. Kev Accept?
  91. Kev I've, obviously, not read this as I missed the thread.
  92. ralphm Not objecting to JIDPrep
  93. MattJ Accept.
  94. m&m absolutely no objections from me
  95. Tobias +1
  96. Kev OK. I'll read it and not object on list.
  97. Kev 4) Date of next.
  98. Peter Waher question?
  99. ralphm Sure!
  100. Kev Peter Waher: Why is orange jam called marmalade. Also - is it AOB?
  101. Peter Waher :)
  102. Peter Waher Have you been able to discuss the HTTP over XMPP proposal?
  103. Kev Oh, have I missed another ProtoXEP?
  104. m&m it was last meeting … some votes pending
  105. Kev No, we did this last time.
  106. Kev Right, I think my vote is outstanding for that.
  107. Tobias yup
  108. Kev Taking most of the intervening time off hasn't been ideal for getting stuff done.
  109. Kev I'll try and send votes tonight, else tomorrow morning for last week's.
  110. Kev Assuming no-one's going to shoot me for doing it on the 15th day.
  111. Peter Waher thanks :)
  112. m&m so, I would really like to see it moved to <iq type='set'/> before publishing
  113. Kev So, next meeting - I /think/ I can do Wednesday, but I send tentative apologies just in case what I'm doing overruns.
  114. m&m otherwise, I sent comments to standards@ this morning (MDT)
  115. m&m Kev: noted (-:
  116. ralphm m&m: agreed, for methods other than GET/HEAD
  117. stpeter Kev: shall we keep the meeting as scheduled and move if necessary?
  118. m&m I can see a strong case being made to just use 'set' for all HTTP methods
  119. Kev I'm intending to be there, may as well leave it SBTSBC. I'll try to wrap up beforehande.
  120. ralphm m&m: I can't see it, yet.
  121. m&m simplicity, it is technically providing information for processing, etc etc
  122. Kev 5) AOB?
  123. Lance Kev yes AOB
  124. m&m webifying XEP-0156
  125. Lance What is the status for http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html?
  126. Kanchil Lance: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html?: XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding
  127. m&m oh, that
  128. Kev I'm giving a talk on the XSF and the XEP process next Wed at the London realtime thing, if anyone has suggestions (I've obviously not started it yet :))
  129. Lance seems to have fallen through the cracks to get out of last call
  130. m&m yikes
  131. Kev Oh. I thought we'd voted that to Draft.
  132. m&m me to
  133. m&m too
  134. Kev But it seems we voted it to LC 28th Nov, and then didn't touch it again.
  135. m&m ouch
  136. Kev With no feedback on the list.
  137. stpeter hrmph
  138. Kev Oh.
  139. Kev No, there were two LCs by the look of it
  140. Lance adds task to write feedback emails
  141. ralphm in any case, this doesn't show in the tally
  142. ralphm http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/
  143. Kanchil ralphm: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/: Twelfth Council &#8211; The XMPP Standards Foundation
  144. Kev So there was feeback to the first LC, but not the second.
  145. m&m adds .todo to respond to LC
  146. Kev Ta.
  147. MattJ Good idea :)
  148. Kev I'll put it on the agenda next week.
  149. ralphm that must be the longest running LC we've had
  150. Tobias heh
  151. Kev AOAOB?
  152. MattJ I'd respond, but though I'm an author I'm not sure I've implemented it anywhere...
  153. Kev MattJ: MAM?
  154. Lance Kev: Updating XEP-0156 for use from browsers
  155. MattJ I haven't implemented MAM, Zash did
  156. Kev Ah.
  157. Peter Waher Kev: Had a small presentation about XSF for IEEE, small presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/xsf
  158. Kanchil Peter Waher: http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/xsf: XSF - XMPP Standards Foundation
  159. Kev Peter Waher: Ta.
  160. Kev Lance: What's the Councilish action on that?
  161. m&m well, is it worth doing in the XSF?
  162. ralphm Kev: what's the audience for the realtime meetup?
  163. Kev ralphm: No idea :D
  164. Lance m&m has the details. mainly is it an action for the XSF to register new Web Link entries, or is that left to the IETF Working Group
  165. ralphm Kev: at least put some note on XSF promoting federation in there
  166. Kev ralphm: Oh, fun thought. Ta.
  167. m&m stpeter: what's required for "Expert Review" at the IETF?
  168. stpeter m&m: it depends on the registry
  169. m&m really ought to learn this stuff himself
  170. m&m in our specific case, the .well-known registry, and possibly the link relations registry
  171. stpeter ah
  172. ralphm m&m: I'm sure someone wants to make you a chair of some WG, for experience.
  173. stpeter for well-known, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785
  174. Kanchil stpeter: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785: RFC 5785 - Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
  175. m&m heh
  176. stpeter for link relations, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
  177. Kanchil stpeter: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988: RFC 5988 - Web Linking
  178. stpeter we happen to know the experts ;-)
  179. stpeter http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml and http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
  180. m&m right … and a quick glance at RFC5785 seems to require an RFC
  181. Kev So, someone needs to write an RFC, and therefore it's not Councilish? :)
  182. m&m and the same for link relations
  183. m&m I think that settles it
  184. m&m Kev: it would appear to be the case
  185. Kev Excellent AOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOB?
  186. ralphm It is councillish because we give general guidance towards proper venues for standardisation.
  187. stpeter :)
  188. ralphm :-D
  189. Tobias Kev, none from me
  190. m&m no more from me, I don't think (-:
  191. Kev Excellent.
  192. MattJ Let's see if we can come up with OB and overrun 30 minutes to see what happens to Kev
  193. m&m haha
  194. Kev Given what I've got going on this evening, I'll unilaterally end the meeting :p
  195. ralphm Is RealtimeConf planned yet?
  196. stpeter m&m: "Specification Required" != "RFC Required"
  197. Kev So, I think we're done!
  198. Kev Thanks all.
  199. ralphm Kev: what!
  200. MattJ Thanks
  201. ralphm I am asking a question here
  202. Kev ralphm: Realtime conf discussions aren't councilish, so the discussion can happen afterwards :)
  203. stpeter I second the call to end the official part of the meeting
  204. ralphm tsk
  205. jabberjocke I would like to have IoT session on the realtime conf
  206. Lance has joined
  207. Kev Excellent. Thanks all.
  208. Kev bangs the gavel.
  209. m&m haha
  210. jabberjocke a question
  211. stpeter jabberjocke: sure!
  212. jabberjocke have you looked at the http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Tech_pages/IoT_systems
  213. ralphm Awesome. I just got an e-mail titled "Concealed Business Proposition"
  214. Kanchil jabberjocke: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Tech_pages/IoT_systems: Tech pages/IoT systems - XMPP Wiki
  215. Lance has left
  216. Lance has joined
  217. stpeter jabberjocke: the Realtime Conference is http://www.realtimeconf.com/ -- we will probably hold an XMPP Summit around that time
  218. stpeter jabberjocke: I haven't looked at those pages yet
  219. jabberjocke that would be good to be able to discuss our IoT things
  220. jabberjocke there is now SleekXMPP implementations done
  221. jabberjocke and clayster is also implementing
  222. jabberjocke I'm in San Francisco contacting stanford berkley etc
  223. jabberjocke to get more feedback
  224. ralphm now he tells me
  225. ralphm I just got back from SF
  226. jabberjocke :(
  227. stpeter ralphm: I hope your trip went well!
  228. jabberjocke sorry to miss you
  229. ralphm stpeter: very well indeed
  230. jabberjocke I sent out on the lists, had a meeting yesterday at a grappa bar very nice :)
  231. stpeter Lance: I suggest we update XEP-0156 to include the .well-known stuff -- or do you think that a separate spec is needed? I'd kind of like to define all the alternative discovery mechanisms in one place
  232. stpeter ralphm: excellent!
  233. Lance stpeter: +1 on keeping it all in one document, as long as it doesn't get too big
  234. stpeter Lance: I don't think it will
  235. Lance ok, then I'll add upating 156 to my list
  236. m&m stpeter: I doubt it
  237. m&m er… s/stepeter://
  238. m&m I doubt it'll get too big
  239. m&m just need some examples
  240. jabberjocke when will a summit be decided?
  241. m&m and the definitions for new host-meta link relations
  242. stpeter jabberjocke: probably when the Realtime Conf is decided -- but we know the people who run that ;-)
  243. stpeter bbiaf
  244. jabberjocke keep me posted would like to open up a IoT track
  245. Peter Waher has left
  246. Zash has joined
  247. stpeter has left
  248. stpeter has joined
  249. Tobias has joined
  250. Lance has joined
  251. Lance has joined
  252. Neustradamus has joined
  253. bear has joined
  254. Lance has joined
  255. ralphm has left
  256. ralphm has joined
  257. Lance has joined
  258. stpeter has left
  259. Tobias has left
  260. Tobias has joined
  261. ralphm has left
  262. Zash has left
  263. m&m has left
  264. m&m has joined
  265. m&m has left