XMPP Council - 2013-07-10


  1. m&m has joined
  2. m&m has left
  3. m&m has joined
  4. Tobias has left
  5. m&m has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. Tobias has joined
  8. Kev has joined
  9. m&m has joined
  10. Kev Ah. Probably need an agenda.
  11. m&m possibly
  12. Kev http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-processing-hints.html I think I missed this last week.
  13. Kev Also have a new version of chat markers to look at.
  14. m&m oh, he did submit it?
  15. Kev http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html
  16. m&m yup
  17. Kev Anything else?
  18. m&m I can't think of anything else
  19. Kev Excellent. Just need to poke my head in in a couple of hours, then.
  20. Kev If I haven't expired from heat by then.
  21. m&m http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0132.html
  22. Kev Possibly.
  23. Peter Waher has joined
  24. Kev I'm going to pop out to try to buy a fan, I hope to be back before the meeting.
  25. Kev (But you know where I am if not)
  26. m&m Noted…good luck!
  27. ralphm hi
  28. m&m waves
  29. Kev I return. Please let this help, I'm too young to melt.
  30. ralphm hah
  31. ralphm How warm is it. 25C?
  32. Kev It's about 25 outside, but it's about 28 in the house.
  33. Kev Humid and pretty much no breeze. Yuck.
  34. m&m ugh
  35. ralphm I'm just sitting outside
  36. ralphm nice breeze, too
  37. stpeter has joined
  38. stpeter howdy
  39. stpeter it sounds as if folks across the pond are experiencing a bit of hot weather, eh?
  40. ralphm feels like summer. not complaining
  41. m&m I do lament the lack of Spring we had in Denver this year
  42. Tobias stpeter, yeah...complaining about sun mid-july :P
  43. Kev I don't like bad weather like this, I want it to go back to being nice again.
  44. Kev Anyway.
  45. Kev 1) Roll call
  46. Kev I'm here!
  47. MattJ Present
  48. m&m presente
  49. MattJ Tobias is so slow
  50. Tobias here
  51. ralphm here
  52. Tobias MattJ, still not the slowest fox
  53. MattJ :)
  54. Kev 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html Accept?
  55. m&m no objections
  56. ralphm !-1
  57. MattJ ditto
  58. Kev The banner is OK to keep me happy.
  59. Kev Tobias?
  60. Tobias yay for heuristics
  61. Tobias no objections
  62. Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-processing-hints.html
  63. MattJ No objections to accepting as experimental, but I'd like more discussion :)
  64. m&m it's an interesting concept
  65. m&m I need to read it again, but I've no objections to going experimental
  66. Kev I have some comments on it, but not enough to block publishing.
  67. Tobias no detection for support?
  68. MattJ No, because they're only hints
  69. MattJ (my current argument)
  70. stpeter heh
  71. MattJ Arguments can be made in favour of adding support detection
  72. ralphm !-1
  73. MattJ But the point is, as hints, it shouldn't be the end of the world if they aren't adhered to
  74. ralphm I always liked the idea behind AMP
  75. Kev They're hints, and they're hints to multiple parties along the way.
  76. Tobias MattJ, if it's only to your local server feature detection could reduce unneeded traffic...but going over s2s you'll never know if it's supported...altough the server could just strip it
  77. MattJ That too
  78. m&m AMP has some decent concepts, but it's execution is shoddy
  79. ralphm right
  80. Kev 4) Date of next.
  81. m&m really, it should just go away until something actually useful can be made! (-:
  82. m&m RE 2): still ok with next week
  83. m&m er … 4)
  84. ralphm competing specs. FTW
  85. stpeter the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from...
  86. Tobias is 2) already done?
  87. Tobias i mean 3
  88. Kev I thought nobody objected.
  89. ralphm I'd like to see someone enforce royalties on that phrase. or the XKCD. tired now
  90. MattJ Tobias didn't comment either way
  91. Kev Ah.
  92. Kev I mis-read 'no detection' as 'no objection'. Which is impressive.
  93. Kev Tobias: Do you object?
  94. Tobias nope
  95. Kev Excellent.
  96. MattJ Good ;)
  97. stpeter :)
  98. Kev Everyone OK with next week?
  99. ralphm yeah
  100. Tobias whatever floats your boat
  101. m&m yes
  102. MattJ wfm
  103. Kev 5) AOB?
  104. Peter Waher HTTP over XMPP?
  105. Kev Peter Waher: We did that last week didn't we?
  106. ralphm what do you guys think of http over xmpp uris?
  107. Peter Waher But it was never approved as Experimental and given a number
  108. Kev No-one has objected.
  109. stpeter I haven't caught up on much email this morning, so I haven't read Peter Waher's messages yet
  110. Kev Tobias only didn't object two hours ago :)
  111. Peter Waher Nobody has objected to the actual protocol-part
  112. Peter Waher only the URI-part, which I responded to this morning
  113. Kev ralphm: I think that I'm not yet convinced that httpx is needed, but I could still be talked around.
  114. ralphm Peter Waher, in general that's not what we object to for accepting as XEP
  115. Peter Waher it would be great if it could be made Experimental and given a number
  116. ralphm Peter Waher: patience
  117. m&m just having a number doesn't mean you're done
  118. Peter Waher I'm happy to continue discussion about URI-registration until you're convinced
  119. ralphm we're a fast movin SDO
  120. stpeter heh
  121. Peter Waher :)
  122. Peter Waher Basically I need a number, so I can refer to it in a paper using it...
  123. ralphm the discussion the URIs is orthogonal to the acceptance for publication
  124. Peter Waher That's why I'm nagging
  125. Tobias Peter Waher, can't you refer to HTTP URLs? :)
  126. Kev It'll be 332 won't it? :)
  127. ralphm Peter Waher: bad planning, man :-P
  128. stpeter I will commit to reviewing this spec in detail next week, but until next Monday evening I'll be busy updating Internet-Drafts -- I have way too many to clear out of my queue http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html
  129. Peter Waher no, since it uses both http and httpx
  130. Kev Anyway, I think we've moved away from Councilish things here.
  131. ralphm stpeter: take your time
  132. Kev AOAOB?
  133. Tobias none from my side
  134. ralphm nay
  135. m&m I got a verbal notice from the AD sponsoring the XMPP WG
  136. ralphm woot
  137. m&m it looks like he's good with us having the hackfest
  138. Tobias who's the AD?
  139. m&m Richard Barnes
  140. Tobias ahh
  141. Tobias nice
  142. m&m and I think he'll even show up to the hackfest (-:
  143. ralphm heh
  144. stpeter so in any case it sounds as if we can publish the http-over-xmpp proposal (no objections from Council members), correct? but yes we do need to also figure out the URI issue
  145. MattJ The hackfest is separate from IETF, right?
  146. Tobias MattJ, right
  147. m&m it is, but at the same location
  148. Kev stpeter: Correct.
  149. stpeter all righty
  150. Kev Then I think we're done. Thanks all.
  151. Tobias are we done? g2g to another meeting
  152. Kev bangs the gavel.
  153. Tobias yay
  154. Peter Waher thanks :)
  155. ralphm stpeter: yeah. I welcome list feedback on that
  156. stpeter likes it how Swift pops up toast when your nick is mentioned in a chatroom
  157. ralphm thanks!
  158. Peter Waher has left
  159. m&m has left
  160. Tobias has left
  161. m&m has joined
  162. m&m has left
  163. Tobias has joined
  164. m&m has joined
  165. Tobias has joined
  166. jabberjocke has left
  167. Kev has left
  168. stpeter I'll wait for the minutes to be issued before publishing any new XEPs, methinks
  169. stpeter I'm less likely to make mistakes that way :-)
  170. ralphm heh
  171. Kev has joined
  172. Kev has left
  173. ralphm stpeter: I think you scared him
  174. stpeter perhaps :-)
  175. m&m I understand that fear can be healthy (-:
  176. ralphm as in: good for you health? Definitely. That's why it was invented. To then run.
  177. Tobias has joined
  178. m&m has left
  179. m&m has joined
  180. stpeter has left
  181. m&m has left
  182. m&m has joined
  183. m&m has left