XSF logo XMPP Council - 2019-09-25


  1. vanitasvitae has left
  2. vanitasvitae has joined
  3. daniel has left
  4. daniel has joined
  5. daniel has left
  6. daniel has joined
  7. lnj has joined
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. lnj has left
  10. Remko has joined
  11. daniel has left
  12. daniel has joined
  13. debacle has joined
  14. lnj has joined
  15. debacle has left
  16. debacle has joined
  17. lnj has left
  18. jonas’ oh, it is the day again
  19. Ge0rG And there are PRs waiting for the Inbox.
  20. Link Mauve Oh right, I’ll try to be available but nothing guaranteed, my bus is at 6pm 25 minutes away from my current restaurant.
  21. Link Mauve I’ll try to be at some café at 5pm.
  22. daniel has left
  23. daniel has joined
  24. lnj has joined
  25. Remko has left
  26. Remko has joined
  27. Guus has left
  28. Ge0rG has left
  29. Guus has joined
  30. Kev has left
  31. Kev_ has left
  32. Ge0rG has joined
  33. Ge0rG has left
  34. Ge0rG has joined
  35. Kev has joined
  36. Kev_ has joined
  37. Ge0rG has left
  38. Ge0rG has joined
  39. Ge0rG has left
  40. Ge0rG has joined
  41. dwd has joined
  42. lnj has left
  43. lnj has joined
  44. jonas’ 'tis time
  45. Link Mauve Hi.
  46. Ge0rG .o/
  47. jonas’ are we again without dwd and Kev?
  48. Ge0rG and without an agenda.
  49. Kev Kev's here.
  50. jonas’ that’s at least something
  51. jonas’ shuffles the chair to Kev
  52. Kev Dave was just replying to Council stuff on-list, so I assume is about somewhere.
  53. wojtek has joined
  54. Kev Do we have things that need to be agendarised this week?
  55. jonas’ probably
  56. jonas’ edhelas just pointed at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824
  57. Kev There's a protoXEP too isn't there?
  58. wojtek has left
  59. Ge0rG Also JC split up the Retractions XEP into two inboxes
  60. jonas’ I think we missed voting on the ProtoXEP
  61. Ge0rG The ProtoXEP from last week?
  62. dwd Here, sorry.
  63. jonas’ Ge0rG, I haven’t taken care of those yet because I was without internet over the weekend
  64. Kev hands over to Dave.
  65. jonas’ we also have got https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834
  66. Link Mauve Note: I will have to leave exactly at 17:30 CEST or before, to not be left behind in Hamburg.
  67. dwd Wife's birthday today, so I was makinge mother-in-law a cuppa.
  68. dwd So:
  69. Ge0rG Link Mauve: Hamburg is a very nice place. Just use the Council Meeting as an excuse to stay.
  70. dwd 1) Roll Call
  71. Ge0rG Full House!
  72. dwd Yay.
  73. Link Mauve Ge0rG, that’s why I’m here. :D
  74. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  75. dwd Sorry for no agenda - work is extremely busy for me right now.
  76. jonas’ dwd, to summarize what was writetn above: - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834 - tokens protoxep
  77. edhelas has joined
  78. jonas’ dwd, to summarize what was writetn above: - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834 - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html
  79. dwd Ace, thanks.
  80. edhelas (thanks)
  81. dwd 3) Items for a vote:
  82. Ge0rG * Message retractions: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/832 * Message moderation: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/833
  83. dwd a) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824
  84. jonas’ Ge0rG, tohse cannot be voted on yet
  85. dwd XEP-0060: Add pubsub#public in Publish-Subscribe features #824
  86. jonas’ they are not merged and have not been announced
  87. jonas’ and at least one of them has a build failure
  88. Kev This feels like it'd also be blocked on similar grounds to the MUC one Dave just -1d.
  89. dwd I'm going to vote on-list on this, pending the outcome of a quick chat I'd like to have in AOB about how we do this kind of thing.
  90. Kev Although somewhat less so.
  91. Ge0rG dwd: "this kind of thing" - what kind of thing?
  92. jonas’ dwd, I have a few words on that AOB
  93. Link Mauve Ge0rG, adding new informative features to a main XEP.
  94. dwd Ge0rG, See note to list (or wait until AOB), but summary is that if we constantly add small things to big specs they get bigger and never progress to Final.
  95. dwd Ge0rG, Particular things in extensible forms, etc.
  96. Link Mauve Ge0rG, see CAKHUCzxMJNt+oYc=+q=Pa7AYd5311oNE4s_zirUwNhykXNhvUg@mail.gmail.com
  97. Ge0rG pubsub#public looks like a breaking change to me.
  98. dwd Would anyone else like to vote?
  99. Kev Not at this stage, I think we need OtherDiscussion first.
  100. Link Mauve Ge0rG, not if it is exposed with a disco#info-able feature on the service, which it doesn’t seem to do atm.
  101. jonas’ yes, on-list
  102. Ge0rG on-list then
  103. dwd OK. Moving on.
  104. dwd b) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834
  105. dwd XEP-0410: treat remote-server-{not-found,timeout} like timeout #834
  106. Wojtek has joined
  107. Link Mauve I’m +1 on this.
  108. jonas’ +1 on that one
  109. jonas’ (SURPRISE!)
  110. Ge0rG As this is only a client behavior recommendation, I don't consider this a breaking change and thus I'm also +1 with my Council hat on
  111. dwd This seems sensible. I'm going to +1 on this.
  112. dwd Kev, What do you think about this one?
  113. jonas’ this is also based on a real-world issue, https://github.com/horazont/aioxmpp/issues/312
  114. Kev I'm here and pondering.
  115. Kev I should probably +1 it.
  116. dwd Kev, Feel free to on-list if you need more pondering.
  117. Kev While being concerned that it illustrates the brittleness of all this sort of thing.
  118. Kev I think it is a breaking change, but I don't see how bumping anything would improve interop over not bumping.
  119. dwd Kev, Yes, all this stuff is a nightmare of heuristics that's a workaround for issues with MUC.
  120. Ge0rG Kev: the breakage doesn't affect anything but how a client treats incoming errors.
  121. jonas’ there is no interop issue, because there’s nothing interoperating at that point of the "protocol", methinks?
  122. Kev Ge0rG: Yes. I mean that a client compliant to 1.0.1 wouldn't be compliant to 1.1 - but as I say, I don't think bumping anything would be beneficial to anyone.
  123. jonas’ define "compliant"
  124. dwd "does what the spec says".
  125. Link Mauve Also, there is no negociation here, so no bumping is required anywhere?
  126. jonas’ interop issues require that one party is relying on behaviour of another party, right?
  127. dwd Although I think Kev means "conformant", really, since "compliance" is usually associated with some kind of testing.
  128. jonas’ I don’t think that anyone can be relying on that client behaviour recommendation either way.
  129. dwd jonas’, The client is relying on those errors meaning what we think they mean in this case.
  130. dwd Kev, Voting or on-list?
  131. Kev How long would we like to spend arguing over my choice of words in approving this not being the choice of words people would have liked me to use in approving this?
  132. jonas’ I wasn’t seeing a definite approval from you :)
  133. Kev +1
  134. jonas’ just a "should probably", which is neither here nor there
  135. Ge0rG Kev: until you utter one of (-1, +1, on-list)
  136. jonas’ thanks
  137. dwd :-)
  138. Kev I did utter +1, FWIW.
  139. Ge0rG Awesome.
  140. Ge0rG blames network latency.
  141. dwd Kev, You said you probably should. I didn't take that as a vote, sorry.
  142. dwd c) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html
  143. jonas’ on-list
  144. dwd ProtoXEP: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html
  145. Ge0rG on-list
  146. dwd I mean, ProtoXEP: XEP-xxxx: Authorization Tokens
  147. Link Mauve On list too.
  148. Ge0rG dwd: you can LMC ;)
  149. jonas’ *could’ve
  150. Kev This is the thing that happened while I was on holiday and the thread looked scary, right? :)
  151. dwd Ge0rG, [I'm never quite happy with doing LMC in meetings for anything beyond simple typos because of the record]
  152. dwd Kev, That'd be it.
  153. Kev I'll on-list this. I suspect this'll involve more thinking than I'd like.
  154. Kev (Unless Dave helpfully vetoes first)
  155. Wojtek has left
  156. Ge0rG Kev: you can't simply reuse somebody else's -1, you need to provide your own arguments.
  157. dwd In general, I'm vociferously against trying to define authentication pathways in the XSF. I do not believe we have the expertise, and I think it's a area where we should defer to the IETF (XMPP and/or Kitten Working Groups).
  158. Kev Ge0rG: Sure you can, you can just say "Make Dave happy" as the remediation.
  159. dwd Hence, -1. In addition, I think large amounts of this duplicate work in XEP-0399 - I appreciate there are differences, but I think it'd be better to work on '399 than introduce something entirely new but heavily overlapping.
  160. Ge0rG is it also overlapping with XEP-0397: Instant Stream Resumption?
  161. jonas’ without voting officially (just for the record): I think that Dave is mostly right, but I’d like to take a look at '399 in this context myself before voting
  162. dwd Ge0rG, You can -1 a proposed XEP because it's my wife's birthday, if you like.
  163. Kev Ge0rG: Somewhat related, because of tokens.
  164. dwd Ge0rG, To some extent, yes. I noted that in my mail to the list, but mostly in relation to the HT-* SASL mech,
  165. Ge0rG dwd: In my opinion, the XSF, and the Council especially, is already in a sufficiently sad state, even without involving your wife.
  166. jonas’ that reads mean
  167. dwd Anyone else want to vote?
  168. jonas’ hasn’t everyone said "on-list" or "-1"?
  169. Ge0rG Sorry.
  170. Ge0rG It was probably a bad comparison.
  171. jonas’ everyone has
  172. Kev I'm going to on-list. I'll be of the same opinion as Dave on both counts, but still want to re-read it all first.
  173. Kev But I'm default to -1, because that's what I'll ultimately say.
  174. dwd OK, thanks.
  175. dwd 5) Outstanding Votes
  176. dwd I think none of us have any, now? Although I've a holding -1 on Jonas's MUC thing, so I ought to get to AOB quickly...
  177. dwd 6) Next Meeting
  178. jonas’ +1w wfm
  179. Link Mauve Same.
  180. Ge0rG +1W WFM
  181. dwd There's an MLS Interim WG meeting next week I'm attending (I'll report back). You're welcome to carry on without me.
  182. Wojtek has joined
  183. jonas’ dwd, can you prepare an agenda?
  184. dwd jonas’, Maybe. Meeting's on tuesday as well, but I'll try.
  185. dwd 7) AOB
  186. Wojtek has left
  187. Ge0rG dwd: re that MLS meeting; EU and German regulators are looking for suggestions on how to standardize interop between silo IM providers, including E2EE. I'd love to know whether MLS can be the vehicle for that, on a time frame of maybe two years
  188. dwd We seem to have a number of small additions to MUC and PubSub in particular which are, more or less, additions to a info form describing the node/room/etc.
  189. jonas’ I think the first step we need to take is to bring our Registries in order. Much of what has been happening lately is covered by the registries, but we don’t have anyone maintaining them (I’m not even sure that there’s a build process and how it works and I’m scared of looking)
  190. jonas’ dwd, I think the first step we need to take is to bring our Registries in order. Much of what has been happening lately is covered by the registries, but we don’t have anyone maintaining them (I’m not even sure that there’s a build process and how it works and I’m scared of looking)
  191. dwd Can we handle these via the Registrar, or small XEPs?
  192. Ge0rG dwd: first step would be to collect all the different additions that didn't make it to the Registrar, and to update all the registries
  193. Kev This feels like a registry thing to me.
  194. dwd Do we have someone who's acting as the XMPP Registrar?
  195. Ge0rG it is a registry thing, but the registry is broken for all practical matters.
  196. jonas’ see above
  197. Kev It's the Editor, but we don't really have process.
  198. dwd Ah, quite. So no.
  199. dwd Do we flag this to Board and get them to find a volunteer?
  200. jonas’ this is in dire need of fixing
  201. jonas’ I don’t think we’ll find one
  202. jonas’ what I’d need is a hackathon together with iteam to figure out what the current state is and how to fix it.
  203. Kev jonas’: The issue is largely technical isn't it?
  204. jonas’ probably
  205. dwd OK, so we have two problems:
  206. dwd 1) A broken registry system, and
  207. Kev I mean, the process as far as the XSF's concerned is that it's the Editor doing this.
  208. Kev But the Editor doesn't have the ability to do it.
  209. dwd 2) Nobody to act as Registrar.
  210. dwd So, solutions:
  211. jonas’ (I’d also like to mention that I have a deadline on 15:30 UTC)
  212. Ge0rG dwd: 3) a technical foundation probably not sufficiently automated for the task at hand, and maybe also an insufficient number of registry categories
  213. jonas’ Ge0rG, I consider (3) as a part of (1)
  214. dwd jonas’, Noted. I need to keep this one short myself.
  215. jonas’ so from my side (Editor hat), I could work with the following:
  216. Link Mauve I’m also going to have to leave about now, to move closer to the Stockholm XMPP Sprint.
  217. dwd How about I send a summary of the status to the members list and we see if we can find some volunteers to help get the ball rolling?
  218. Link Mauve (I’m also going to have to leave about now, to move closer to the Stockholm XMPP Sprint.)
  219. jonas’ I set up a date with iteam where we work closely (low-latency, e.g. IM) on fixing this. that’ll involve looking into the current build system and how it’s wired to the web server and how we can get this running.
  220. jonas’ I volunteer, but I need help from iteam.
  221. Kev I can probably help, as long as MattJ doesn't mind me interfering in his iteam :)
  222. dwd jonas’, That sounds great if you can find the time.
  223. jonas’ dwd, it *does* look more promising at the moment
  224. Zash has joined
  225. dwd OK, this sounds like a good thing to try first.
  226. dwd And even better, needs no further action from Council or me. :-)
  227. dwd Anything else anyone needs to raise here?
  228. Ge0rG I have a number of large AOBs that I'm still carrying around from Meeting to Meeting
  229. Kev I've had a headache for about 4 days. I'm happy to not spend more time on this.
  230. Ge0rG a.k.a. NO
  231. dwd OK. In that case:
  232. dwd 8) Ite, Meeting Est
  233. Kev Thanks all.
  234. Ge0rG Thanks Dave. Thanks all
  235. jonas’ thanks
  236. dwd Also, Ge0rG - I'm dashing off now, but could you drop me an email with your AOB things? Say a paragraph on each. I'm wondering if any might be addressed if we tried an open meeting, separate from Council.
  237. Ge0rG dwd: I'm sure I wrote that in the AOB part of one of our last Meetings. Maybe two months ago.
  238. dwd Ge0rG, You probably did, but I lack an issue tracker for these kinds of things.
  239. Ge0rG ah, it was 2019-09-04 according to the minutes mail 1. discuss what to list in CS-2020 "Future Development" 2. message errors, still. 3. probably something that's not relevant any more?
  240. Ge0rG dwd: https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2019-09-04#2019-09-04-e4670d04e03033cc
  241. Ge0rG I think the Attach-To AOB got obsoleted by Message Fastening.
  242. Ge0rG And the CS-2020 things were discussed in the linked meeting.
  243. Ge0rG At least a little bit.
  244. daniel has left
  245. daniel has joined
  246. sonny has left
  247. debacle has left
  248. debacle has joined
  249. dwd has left
  250. sonny has joined
  251. lnj has left
  252. Remko has left
  253. Zash has left
  254. Zash has joined
  255. Tobias has left
  256. Remko has joined
  257. Remko has left
  258. daniel has left
  259. debacle has left
  260. daniel has joined
  261. stassewicz has joined
  262. stassewicz has left
  263. daniel has left
  264. Zash has left
  265. daniel has joined
  266. sonny has left
  267. sonny has joined
  268. daniel has left