KevReminder that I've sent apologies for this afternoon.
Ge0rGWithout Kev and dwd, can we do anything today?
SamWhitedI thought dave said he'd be here but just couldn't prepare an agenda before hand?
Ge0rG"should be able to attend" were the exact words
Ge0rGI actually do have two questions to the other council members that I'd like to place today.
danielShall we begin?
SamWhiteddaniel: I think you just volunteered to run things
daniel1) roll call
Ge0rGdaniel: I'm there
SamWhitedI also am here
Ge0rG...for at least the next 50 minutes.
daniel1) reconsider instant stream resumption / accept that as proto xep
danielanyone want to say something or should we just vote on this?
SamWhitedI will be on list as I don't remember this one very well and haven't had a chance to re-read it.
daniel+1 from myself
Ge0rGI vaguely remember some question about the usefulness of this as opposed to 0198 and normal stream init, and challenges regarding token validity, so on-list
danieli'm i guess a couple of LCs end today but it's not on the agenda so we should maybe move this to next time
Ge0rGAre those the LCs that were initiated last week and MUST run for at least 14 days?
danielGe0rG, well some XEPs have 12-12 in their headers like http upload for example. but either way; we'll move that to next week
daniel3) vote on xep-0060 publish-options changes
Ge0rGI'd actually like to hear more from the senior folks regarding the 0060 changes.
SamWhitedWhich one is this? Didn't you make several alternative PRs for 0060?
danieli've proposed three different PRs 555-557 where I personally think 557 is the most reasonable one. so i'd suggest we vote on that one first and if that doesn't get consensus we fall back to to voting on 555
Ge0rGWhile I'm pretty sure we covered well the OSS implementations' feedback, maybe there are 0060 implementations we don't know about that would be broken by this.
Ge0rGand maybe the missing council members do know more.
danielSamWhited, #557 is rendered here. https://gultsch.de/files/xep-0060.html#publisher-publish-options
SamWhitedSorry, just went back and reminded myself which was which. I also liked 557
danielbut yes maybe we should wait for some more list discussion
Ge0rGI've got no first-hand experience, and I'm obviously biased because I helped write the wording in #557
daniel4) Ge0rG's question to council
Ge0rGa) do we have any (proto) XEPs to enroll new accounts with a token / invitation code / similar things?
SamWhitedNot that I'm aware of, but I have considered writing something as a challenge on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0389.html
Ge0rGSamWhited: what's the status of 389? marc and I are working on extending PARS to account-invitation-tokens kind-of-thing
Ge0rGand my question b) would be: is it legitimate to have a server-capability-indicated way to extend the IBR form with additional fields, which are not data-form fields?
Ge0rGi.e. I want the client to initiate regular IBR with a token, so that the server can immediately validate the token and accept the request, instead of presenting a data-form
danielis this a question to council? shouldn't this be a on list discussion between you and the author?
SamWhitedYah, let's discuss afterwards
daniel5) date of next
Ge0rGokay to move on then
SamWhited+1 week WFM
danieli'm gonna be on a train w/o wifi next wednesday
SamWhitedMaybe we should settle on a new time on list then to make sure the people who aren't here this week don't have conflicts if we move it.
Ge0rGSamWhited: sounds good
daniel6) anything else?
danielok. doesn't look like it.
danielthank you and please comment on list regarding the time for next time
Ge0rGdaniel: thank you!
Ge0rGDid we have a note taker?
Ge0rGdaniel: thanks again!
SamWhitedGe0rG: I'm stepping out briefly, but will be around today if you want to discuss IBR2 and your token thing. Feel free to ping me and I'll respond "soon".
Ge0rGSamWhited: TL;DR, xmpp:user@host?;preauth=TOKEN;ibr - the "ibr" is a tag indicating that the TOKEN can be used for IBR authentication, even if generic IBR is disabled
Ge0rGif a client does IBR with TOKEN piggy-backed somehow, the server will auto-subscribe the new account to the inviter.
SamWhitedGe0rG: I'm not aware of a spec already doing something like that, but that was the type of thing that IBR2 was designed to allow.