Wednesday, November 20, 2013
council@muc.xmpp.org
November
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

[00:14:04] *** stpeter has left the room
[00:35:27] *** tato has left the room
[00:50:13] *** tato has joined the room
[00:55:22] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[01:05:15] *** Lance has joined the room
[01:05:16] *** Lance shows as "online"
[01:06:25] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[01:16:04] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:16:20] *** Lance shows as "online"
[01:16:49] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[01:17:43] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[01:17:57] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:19:32] *** tato has left the room
[01:21:14] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[01:21:19] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:41:44] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[02:19:18] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:24:55] *** stpeter has left the room
[02:24:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:30:36] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[02:33:13] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[02:46:34] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[03:14:55] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[03:14:56] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[03:21:37] *** Tobias has left the room
[05:18:12] *** stpeter has left the room
[05:37:29] <fippo> kev: there needs to be a decision about the format first -- linuxwolf made me think (@ http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-November/002037.html ) that the hex-with-colons has some advantages over the raw-base64
[05:44:49] <Lance> and those advantages are?
[05:45:50] <Lance> all i can think of is simpler compatibility with sdp, but that's just a single application of this xep
[05:46:14] <fippo> not just sdp. that format is used by sdp because browsers and openssl use it
[05:46:28] <fippo> this might be a display issue, so it's a small decision
[06:03:47] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[06:08:16] *** bear has joined the room
[06:08:19] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[06:15:15] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[06:26:59] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[06:37:09] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[06:49:12] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:03:00] *** bear has left the room
[07:12:56] *** bear has joined the room
[07:13:01] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[07:30:44] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:36:19] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:43:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:28:14] *** Tobias has left the room
[08:56:36] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:56:37] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:21:13] *** Lance has left the room
[09:24:01] *** Lance has joined the room
[09:24:02] *** Lance shows as "online"
[09:37:56] *** bear has left the room
[10:33:30] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:35:13] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:10:28] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:27:18] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:35:28] *** Tobias has left the room
[11:38:40] *** Tobias has joined the room
[11:38:43] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:41:28] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:55:29] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:18:53] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:21:19] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:31:59] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:32:33] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:40:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:52:51] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:07:26] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:13:42] *** Kev shows as "away"
[13:13:50] *** stpeter has left the room
[13:16:37] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:54:14] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[14:41:20] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:44:22] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[14:44:22] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[14:54:26] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:57:31] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[15:13:01] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[15:13:02] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[15:13:30] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a video meeting"
[15:27:51] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:27:54] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:32:41] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[15:35:12] <Kev> Is there a recommendation anywhere that iqs should return quickly?
[15:35:32] <MattJ> Yes, but it's rather open to interpretation
[15:35:43] <MattJ> It doesn't use the word "quickly"
[15:35:55] <Kev> Do you know where?
[15:36:16] <MattJ> Somewhere, I'm looking to ensure I didn't imagine this sentence
[15:37:06] <MattJ> I remember arguing with someone about it, so it exists somewhere I'm fairly sure
[15:39:28] <Kev> I'm having issues with how much of rayo is presence.
[15:39:34] <Kev> Or the two in the inbox, anyway.
[15:40:00] <Kev> Rayo itself using presence from epemeral JIDs to show them coming into play seems sensible enough.
[15:41:03] <stpeter> (I don't see anything in RFC 6120 about quick responses to IQ requests)
[15:41:05] <fippo> kev: i have too...
[15:41:25] <fippo> mostly because I think that presence shouldn't be used for actual data
[15:41:26] <MattJ> I'm unable to find the text that I'm thinking of :/
[15:41:36] <fippo> but that is for the core rayo spec
[15:41:41] <MattJ> Maybe I'm confusing iq with something else
[15:42:52] <Kev> I'm pondering if saying "send this fax" shouldn't respond once the fax is sent, rather than immediately returning, and then later sending a presence with the result, which seems really wrong.
[15:43:58] <fippo> jingle has some precedence for iq-should-return-quickly -- we don't wait for the user to accept before sending the result
[15:46:11] <fippo> brb
[15:46:13] <Kev> It feels like doing what I was suggesting isn't quite right. I was wondering if we have anything written anywhere to support the feeling.
[15:46:26] <Kev> Regardless, I think the faux-result doesn't belong in presence :)
[15:48:02] <MattJ> After skimming all the RFCs, I can only conclude I was mistake with my "Yes" to your original question
[15:48:06] <MattJ> *mistaken
[15:48:15] <Kev> Ta.
[15:51:26] *** Lance has joined the room
[15:51:26] *** Lance shows as "online"
[15:54:23] *** Dave Cridland has joined the room
[15:56:29] <MattJ> How will we know when you're nodding if we have no video?
[15:57:18] *Dave Cridland nods
[16:01:06] *** Zash has joined the room
[16:01:07] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:05:20] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:06:46] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:07:28] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[16:08:40] <fippo> kev: i'm thinking that rayo itself uses presence in alot of cases where i don't know if it really fits
[16:08:53] <Kev> That may be fair.
[16:09:01] *** Peter Waher has joined the room
[16:09:07] *** bear has joined the room
[16:09:08] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:09:55] <fippo> looking at 0327 i'm also wondering about the rationale of putting urn:xmpp:rayo:client:1 into the node with a caps element
[16:10:07] *** bear shows as "online"
[16:10:41] <fippo> in fact, the whole usage of node there...
[16:11:42] <Lance> yeah, that feels too much like an implementation hack
[16:12:39] <Tobias> just FYI: i might be leaving earlier later, will send any remaining votes before weekend
[16:13:15] <Dave Cridland> Tobias, You might be leaving "earlier later"?
[16:13:49] <Tobias> earlier than the council end, later on this day :)
[16:14:04] <Kev> 'tis time.
[16:14:10] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[16:14:20] <Lance> here
[16:14:20] <Tobias> here
[16:14:22] <fippo> here
[16:14:47] <Tobias> MattJ, ping
[16:14:58] <MattJ> Here
[16:15:03] <MattJ> Laggy, but here
[16:15:17] <Kev> Excellent.
[16:15:37] <Kev> 2 - http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-cpa.html
[16:15:43] <Kev> Accept as Experimental?
[16:16:15] <Kev> I have a number of reservations about this, not least of which that it seems to be reimplementing pubsub.
[16:16:40] <fippo> kev: i have similar objections, but not against this spec but against rayo
[16:16:40] <Kev> But...I'm not sure that justifies rejecting it.
[16:16:46] <Tobias> don't we already have a DTMF xepß
[16:16:51] <Lance> I have reserverations about most of rayo, but i'm +1 for experimental for this since rayo is too
[16:17:25] <Lance> for cpa itself, the main issue i have is it getting its namespaces consistent
[16:17:26] <fippo> i'm +1 -- there are some nits i posted to standards@, but I'm sure ben langfied will fix them
[16:17:29] <Kev> Tobias: 181?
[16:17:37] <stpeter> right, XEP-0181
[16:17:47] <Tobias> yes
[16:17:47] <Kev> I don't think this is competing with 181.
[16:17:54] <MattJ> Hmm, I'd forgotten about that one
[16:17:58] <fippo> tobias: 0181 is inside a jingle session. rayo is about call control
[16:18:10] <Tobias> fippo, ahh...ok
[16:18:23] <fippo> so you might want notifications without being part of the session
[16:18:35] <Tobias> right
[16:18:35] <Kev> I did spend a while re-reading 327 to remind myself this afternoon. There's lots there that doesn't sit quite right.
[16:18:57] <fippo> FWIW, i've heard a lengthy rant about rayo vs csta-xml from our csta-guy
[16:19:02] <MattJ> I think Ben would be quite open to feedback
[16:19:05] <Kev> I think this is !-1 from Fippo, Lance, Kev.
[16:19:07] <Kev> Matt/Tobias?
[16:19:15] <MattJ> +1 to accpting
[16:19:27] <Tobias> i'm okay with accepting as experimental
[16:19:32] <Kev> Marvellous.
[16:19:42] <Kev> 3 - http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-fax.html
Accept as experimental?
[16:20:02] <Tobias> haven't read that yet in detail
[16:20:06] <Lance> same reasoning as above, +1 experimental
[16:20:26] <fippo> found some broken links, ben promised to fix them so i'm +1 as well
[16:20:31] <Lance> my main question for the fax one is why splitting it into two namespaces?
[16:20:44] <Kev> I'm really not comfortable with using <presence/> in place of an <iq =result/>, but I think this falls under the whole 'too much presence in rayo' thing.
[16:21:06] <Kev> So I'm again OK with experimental.
[16:21:24] <Kev> Tobias: Is that a "will vote on list"?
[16:21:25] <Kev> MattJ?
[16:21:31] <Tobias> Kev, yes
[16:21:58] <MattJ> +1 to accepting
[16:22:28] <Kev> 4) Adding tables to 71.
Not really a Council action, but I'd like go gauge opinion here.
[16:22:34] <Tobias> k...will read the rest of the log later..sry..g2g
[16:22:39] <Kev> Tobias: Bibi.
[16:22:58] <Lance> I'm ok wth adding tables to 71
[16:23:08] <Kev> I'm vaguely opposed to adding new elements to 71, in something that's Draft.
[16:23:09] <MattJ> and... what next? :)
[16:23:37] <fippo> is 0071 extensible in a way that support for tables can be disco'd?
[16:23:55] <stpeter> fippo: no
[16:24:13] <Kev> Well, sure it is, if we add the text on disco :)
[16:24:20] <stpeter> yeah
[16:24:35] <Kev> But I feel like this doesn't fit into the spirit of non-backwards compatible changes for Draft, and shoving it in a new XEP with discovery would be appropriate.
[16:24:39] <stpeter> but XEP-0071 wasn't designed that that in mind -- we could add it, though
[16:25:03] <Dave Cridland> Adding extensibility with no impact to the deployed base seems like something that could be added in Draft.
[16:25:18] <stpeter> I apologize for being weeks behind on email, but what exactly is the use case? is this really an IM thing?
[16:25:29] <MattJ> stpeter, I asked that on the list - the answer is yes
[16:25:31] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Yes, if we added discovery we could add it. But at that point, why bother?
[16:25:38] <Kev> stpeter: Yes, IM between non-humans.
[16:25:40] <Dave Cridland> Bot to user communications is the use case.
[16:25:47] <MattJ> Peter Waher wants to be able to send tables of information from a bot or automated service
[16:25:52] <stpeter> XHTML-IM was designed for IM use cases, not generalized communication
[16:25:57] <Kev> I'm not opposed to the use case
[16:26:07] <stpeter> by "IM" I meant human to human communication, sorry
[16:26:16] <Kev> I'd just rather it went into another XEP than we bolted stuff onto 71 at this stage, but if I'm the only one I won't bother objecting to it.
[16:26:27] <MattJ> You're not the only one
[16:26:28] <Kev> So could I get a feeling on whether people are OK with adding discovery+tables to 71?
[16:26:45] <MattJ> I think if we start adding to 71 now, it'll be a slippery slope :)
[16:26:48] <Kev> Just a non-vote +-1 would be good.
[16:26:55] <MattJ> a new XEP with discovery would make sense I think
[16:27:14] <stpeter> aside from needing to improve the security considerations (thanks to Waqas), I would like to push XEP-0071 to Final in 2014
[16:27:19] <fippo> -1 -- a new xep with discovery seems like the better way
[16:27:21] <Lance> yeah, +1 for a new xep. i'm sure there are other issues that need fixing once we dive into it
[16:27:27] <Kev> OK, good enough, thanks.
[16:27:32] <Kev> I'll post thoughts to the list, then.
[16:27:44] <Kev> 5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eventlogging.html
Experimental?
[16:27:47] <stpeter> Lance: "other issues" as in things we need to fix in XHTML-IM?
[16:28:08] <Kev> We've stilll got a couple of items, and we're running out of time, so I'd like to press on.
[16:28:14] <stpeter> (agreed Kev)
[16:28:43] <Lance> +1 experimental for event logging, going by peter's latest version on the list, not the inbox version
[16:28:44] <Kev> So, I'm not intrinsicly opossed to this one. There's a couple of warts that could do with tidying up, to my eye, but that's fine for Experimental.
[16:28:52] <fippo> i'll vote on list. this reminds me of things i've seen in the BEHAVE wg so i want to double-check there
[16:29:01] <Kev> Ah, I've only reviewed the inbox version.
[16:29:10] <Kev> So let's push this out for next meeting once it's in teh inbox.
[16:29:19] <MattJ> Agreed
[16:29:23] <Kev> 6) 134 (Design guidelines)
[16:29:34] <Kev> Fippo raised the issue of these being a little dated a while back.
[16:29:47] <fippo> oh yeah...
[16:30:07] <fippo> let me chech when that was...
[16:30:10] <Kev> stpeter: I'm going to guess you don't have time/energy to update this at the moment?
[16:30:15] <stpeter> heh, "Last Updated: 2004-12-09"
[16:30:40] <Dave Cridland> "SI File Transfer [28] is a good example of respecting the strengths and weaknesses of XMPP" - :-)
[16:30:46] <Dave Cridland> That dates it a little.
[16:30:50] <MattJ> oooooh :)
[16:31:03] <stpeter> it probably does need a bit of updating, yes :-)
[16:31:07] <fippo> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-September/026812.html
[16:31:14] <Kev> I'd like either stpeter or someone else with Peter's blessing to volunteer to update this, I think.
[16:31:31] <Kev> Or, if that's not on the table, consider whether it should stay at Active.
[16:31:47] <Kev> stpeter: Thoughts?
[16:32:00] <fippo> this sounds like something for brussels or another f2f meeting
[16:32:02] <Dave Cridland> It actually looks mostly reasonable to me. Dated, and could use a little love, but essentially still solid.
[16:32:21] <stpeter> after today I'll have more time to work on things, so I can add this to my .plan :P
[16:32:21] <Kev> There's certainly a bulk of sensible stuff in there.
[16:32:22] <fippo> dave: it lacks caps and pep
[16:32:23] <Peter Waher> Sorry I was not available when you discussed IM in 0071. I can response in AOB later
[16:32:32] <Kev> stpeter: OK, thanks.
[16:32:40] <Kev> 6) Date of next.
[16:32:42] <Kev> SBTSBC?
[16:32:45] <MattJ> +1
[16:32:48] <fippo> wfm
[16:32:53] <Lance> wfm
[16:32:59] <stpeter> I'll be offline next week, but have fun :-)
[16:33:03] <Kev> 7) AOB?
[16:33:09] <Peter Waher> two things
[16:33:14] <Kev> You have 30 seconds :)
[16:33:15] <Lance> there are the bosh changes that need to be reviewed
[16:33:22] <Peter Waher> First the tables in 0071
[16:33:24] <stpeter> XEP-0156 updates and BOSH patches
[16:33:28] <MattJ> I'm reviewing BOSH
[16:33:30] <Kev> Peter Waher: I'll reply on list for that.
[16:33:33] <stpeter> maybe the Council can consider those next week
[16:33:35] <Peter Waher> (y)
[16:33:57] <Kev> stpeter: Are the BOSH versions published?
[16:34:01] <stpeter> Kev: yes
[16:34:06] <Kev> Ah, I missed, sorry.
[16:34:11] <Kev> So yes, can vote next week.
[16:34:14] <Peter Waher> the original reason for tables in XHTML-IM was to be able to create chat bots for IoT, where tabular output is necessary
[16:34:17] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0206-1.4.html
[16:34:24] <Kev> Peter Waher: I think we can do this on-list.
[16:34:31] <Peter Waher> (y)
[16:34:31] <Kev> Or here, after the meeting, which I want to close now :)
[16:34:36] <Peter Waher> second item:
[16:34:38] <Peter Waher> Dynamic Forms
[16:34:46] <Peter Waher> I've made all updates you requested
[16:34:51] <Peter Waher> even though it took a while
[16:34:59] <Kev> OK, is that in the Inbox again?
[16:35:22] <Peter Waher> yes
[16:35:38] <Kev> Then I just suck. I'll add it to the agenda for next week, sorry.
[16:35:49] <Peter Waher> (y)
[16:36:06] <Kev> Is that everyone/everything?
[16:36:18] <MattJ> Seems so
[16:36:21] <Peter Waher> for my part, yes
[16:36:22] <Kev> Marvellous.
[16:36:24] <Peter Waher> thanks
[16:36:24] <Kev> Thanks all!
[16:36:27] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[16:36:28] <MattJ> Thanks Kev :)
[16:36:51] <Peter Waher> If you could update the eventlog XEP in the inbox
[16:37:04] <Peter Waher> with the latest version with all corrections
[16:38:00] <Lance> stpeter: i dont know if there are any other issues in 71, but if we're going to make a 71bis, might as well inspect to see if there are any
[16:40:13] <stpeter> Lance: there are security issues of the kind that Waqas raised in Portland
[16:40:25] <stpeter> we need to add some strong wording to the security considerations
[16:41:06] <Kev> Peter Waher: So, the summary is just that I (and others) would rather see tables in a short extra spec with discovery than put into 71 at this late stage in its life. No opposition to the idea, I think.
[16:41:29] <stpeter> Peter Waher: and yes we need to get you up and running with git access, or figure out a better way to get things updated under source control
[16:42:07] <Kev> If the problem is just entry into Git, I don't mind getting mailed a format-patch and pushing it.
[16:42:09] <fippo> stpeter: actually, could you check whether i have git access? sending you patches is silly :-)
[16:42:36] <Kev> Bear's suggestion was that he'd set up a two-way sync with github once Board decide they're comfortable with that submission method.
[16:42:50] <bear> I'm testing that this weekend
[16:45:59] <Peter Waher> ok, excellent
[16:46:23] <Peter Waher> So, if you think a separate XEP is warranted for tabular data, I can write a proposal. Ok with everybody?
[16:46:46] <Peter Waher> Or do we need to discuss this on-list, before a decision is taken?
[16:47:02] <stpeter> I think a bit of discussion on the list would be good
[16:47:11] <Dave Cridland> Peter Waher, For purely tabular data, there is the forms stuff.
[16:47:52] <Peter Waher> But that wouldn't get displayed in the chat window
[16:48:11] <Peter Waher> I'll search for an example...
[16:49:38] <Peter Waher> Example 1: Tabular data using normal text and tab characters:
[16:49:38] <Peter Waher> http://twitpic.com/djmor4
[16:49:45] <Peter Waher> (reading a device)
[16:50:03] <Peter Waher> As tabular data (using Psi client)
[16:50:04] <Peter Waher> http://twitpic.com/djrq2a
[16:50:45] <Peter Waher> (and XHTML-IM containing tables)
[16:51:26] *** Lance has joined the room
[16:51:27] *** Lance shows as "online"
[16:54:11] <stpeter> Peter Waher: ah, that's nice :-)
[16:54:50] <MattJ> Peter Waher, did Psi already allow that? or you added it?
[16:56:05] <Peter Waher> Psi allows it
[16:56:19] <Peter Waher> but only the most basic tables
[16:56:32] <Peter Waher> for instance, I could not use text-align style
[16:56:43] <Peter Waher> to align text within cells left/center/right for instance
[16:56:50] <Peter Waher> (which would be nice)
[16:56:52] <stpeter> heh, XEP-0071 says:

Modularization of XHTML defines many additional modules, such as Table Modules, Form Modules, Object Modules, and Frame Modules. None of these modules is part of the XHTML-IM Integration Set. If support for such modules is desired, it MUST be defined in a separate and distinct integration set.

[16:57:10] <Peter Waher> Correct, but the table XHTML module is "very" complex
[16:57:15] <stpeter> yes
[16:57:22] <stpeter> thus my concern
[16:57:24] <Peter Waher> so, a limited subset would suffice
[16:57:33] <stpeter> although many of the XHTML modules are complex
[16:57:41] <stpeter> and we've subsetted most of them anyway
[16:57:46] <Peter Waher> yes, but also, there are many restrictions in XHTML-IM
[16:57:55] <Peter Waher> when it comes to attributes and especially styles
[16:58:00] <Peter Waher> which is OK under the circumstances
[16:58:07] <Peter Waher> exactly
[16:58:35] <Peter Waher> During the discussion on list I proposed a mimimalistic subset
[16:58:44] <stpeter> Peter Waher: great
[16:59:07] <stpeter> Peter Waher: I'm sorry that I haven't posted in that thread, but I shall soon
[16:59:13] <Peter Waher> (y)
[17:18:36] *** Peter Waher has left the room
[17:51:20] *** stpeter has left the room
[18:02:59] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:06:00] <fippo> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0156-1.1.html <-- bosh updates include those, right?
[18:06:21] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[18:06:28] <fippo> (heh, since there is a link to the log in the minutes i don't even need to send an email)
[18:06:44] <Lance> heh
[18:07:29] <Kev> It's on my list.
[18:07:42] <Kev> Up to 8 items already.
[18:08:30] <fippo> oh, i can add another two :-)
[18:08:40] <bear> question - i'm chatting with one of the moz wg-presence folks and he is asking about a reference doc on presence propagation
[18:08:44] <bear> which XEP is that?
[18:08:55] <Kev> I don't understand the question.
[18:08:57] <Lance> that should be core 6120/1, right?
[18:08:58] <fippo> presence propagation?
[18:09:01] <Kev> If it's core presence handling, that's 6121
[18:09:31] <bear> yes, presence handling thanks
[18:10:22] <Lance> Kev: what items do you have so far?
[18:12:34] <Kev> Bosh, Bosh, 156, dynamic forms, event handling, plus the boilerplate.
[18:15:06] <bear> can presence be subscriptions be done by "group" ?
[18:15:53] <Kev> Presence subs are always 1:1
[18:16:32] <Kev> Most servers support shared roster groups of some sort, but that's an implementation detail.
[18:18:28] <bear> thanks
[18:28:27] *** Zash shows as "away"
[18:29:11] *** Zash shows as "online"
[18:34:07] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:34:23] *** bear shows as "away"
[18:34:35] *** bear shows as "online"
[18:38:23] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[18:54:20] *** bear shows as "away"
[18:54:51] *** bear shows as "online"
[19:00:17] *** Tobias has joined the room
[19:00:21] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:03:18] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:05:59] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[19:11:04] *** bear shows as "away"
[19:13:17] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:23:16] *** Dave Cridland shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:52:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[19:54:09] <stpeter> yeah it would be good to standardize roster groups
[19:54:38] <Lance> in what way?
[19:54:57] <fippo> i think that MUC solves much more use cases than roster groups typically
[19:55:10] <stpeter> hmm
[19:55:26] <stpeter> yeah, now that I think about it I can't say that I care too much about shared roster groups :-)
[19:55:53] <MattJ> Users care about shared roster groups - a lot
[19:56:02] <stpeter> they do
[19:56:24] <MattJ> We also have a Prosody plugin to inject MUC bookmarks based on group
[19:56:32] <MattJ> which a number of people use
[19:56:43] <stpeter> we've never succeeded in defining a common solution here, though
[19:56:50] <fippo> mattj: do they care about presence or chatting with a group of people?
[19:57:48] <MattJ> Both
[19:58:05] <MattJ> I know of people with 4K users in a single group :)
[19:58:15] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:58:46] <stpeter> ouch
[19:59:24] <fippo> i recently had a case where a server crashes because 2000 people had subscribed to 1999 other peoples presence...
[19:59:47] <MattJ> Yeah, it found some bottlenecks in our code :)
[20:00:02] <MattJ> We managed to make Pidgin the bottleneck, which was where we drew the line
[20:00:08] <fippo> MUC has interesting scalability implications here ... i.e. you always send updates only to people that are in the muc
[20:00:38] <MattJ> People do use offline messages
[20:00:40] <fippo> which isn't terribly helpful if all people are in the same timezone and working 9-to-5
[20:00:52] <MattJ> The folk with large groups tend to use it as a way for employees to locate other employees
[20:00:55] <fippo> ah, non-anonymous muc then and smart clients
[20:22:46] <Lance> from yesterday's version of the wiki: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=CloudServices/Presence&oldid=766337#Why_not_use_XMPP.3F
[20:23:18] <Lance> and wrong room tab, of course
[20:28:16] *** bear shows as "online"
[20:29:37] *** Tobias has left the room
[20:30:45] *** Tobias has joined the room
[20:30:46] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:31:01] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "playing games"
[20:43:15] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[20:48:31] *** bear shows as "away"
[20:49:21] *** bear shows as "online"
[21:21:45] *** bear shows as "away"
[21:28:53] *** Zash has left the room
[21:29:18] *** bear shows as "online"
[21:33:45] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:43:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:43:45] *** Dave Cridland shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:06:02] *** bear shows as "away"
[22:06:16] *** bear shows as "online"
[22:08:54] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[22:19:37] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:21:13] *** bear shows as "away"
[22:24:05] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[22:30:33] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:40:33] *** Dave Cridland shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:43:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:59:12] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:04:15] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:04:34] *** bear shows as "online"
[23:10:38] *** Tobias has joined the room
[23:10:42] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[23:25:30] *** Dave Cridland has left the room
[23:36:54] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[23:36:54] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[23:40:19] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[23:47:04] *** bear shows as "away"
[23:51:34] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"