Ge0rGOh, it looks like the vote update mail I didn't finish went down in a laptop crash.
jonas’1) Roll Call
Ge0rGGood morning everyone!
jonas’I don’t expect a dwd, but Zash was active in another room a few minutes ago
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
jonas’anything to add/remove?
jonas’3) Editor’s Update
- ProtoXEP: Reminders
- Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0184
- Calls in progress: None.
jonas’4) Items for voting
jonas’4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0184
Title: Message Delivery Receipts
This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for message delivery receipts, whereby the sender of a message can request notification that the message has been delivered to a client controlled by the intended recipient.
Ge0rGThat's a tough one. There was some feedback, and part of it I'd consider as "very important"
Ge0rGI'm pretty sure the original authors are very busy, so looks like we need to re-assign or to find a Shepherd of sorts.
danielI'm very torn on that one. On one hand hand it kinda does what it is supposed to do. And it is widely deployed. It has just slightly fallen out of time
jonas’I admit to not have read the full thread yet, so I’m hesitant to shepherd.
ZashI think I'll have to re-read that thread. So, on-list.
Ge0rGThere are two possible ways forward:
1) do some eitorial clean-up and modernization without bumping
2) do the crazy multi-ACK namespace bump
Ge0rGall that said, I'm -1 to advance it as-is
danielI'm against 2
jonas’I’m also against (2). I’d rather get '333 bumped in such a way.
Ge0rGand given my lack of time, I can't responsibly promise to step up to do #1
ZashI think it's mostly fine, but some clarification never hurts
Ge0rGjonas’: there were strong arguments for the per-message ACKing of 0184 that isn't available in 0333
jonas’Ge0rG, I meant to implicitly mutate '333 to do multi-message acks
Ge0rGbut maybe I'm biased in that regard, and what I see as strong arguments is just a "meh" for other readers.
ZashDifferent implementations / implementers have different requirements? :)
Ge0rGjonas’: that would be rather weird
Zashjonas’, doesn't it already, in a forward-moving pointer way?
jonas’either way, I see we can’t advance it
jonas’Zash, but message loss
danielI'm -1 and I'd suggest we do some minor cleanups and advance them
Ge0rGjonas’: adding a new version to 0184 and a server-side muxing/demuxing compat is much more straight-forward
jonas’daniel, will you do the cleanups?
danielI haven't even gotten around my own xeps
Ge0rGshouldn't we formally ping the authors first?
jonas’so let’s do that. I’m on-list for now
Ge0rGI feel like I'd like to do the 0184 editing, but I lack the time
Ge0rGso if somebody wearing a chair or an editor hat could remind me periodically, this could happen in a reasonable timeframe
jonas’I’ll ping the authors with my editor hat, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll nag you
jonas’4b) Start Last Call for XEP-0280: Message Carbons
Title: Message Carbons
In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation, outbound messages are carbon-copied to all interested resources.
jonas’that’s a fun one
jonas’someone™ suggested it
Ge0rG,oO( I'm )-1 on principle.
Ge0rG,oO( I'm -1 on principle. )
jonas’is that a formal vote?
danielI don't think a LC will yield widely different results to last time
jonas’I personally think that '280 should not be touched anymore and any energy should go in '409 (IM 2.0)
Ge0rGI was the last one to touch it, so:
- I was told that "it contains payload elements typically used in IM" is not a strict definition of applicable payloads, and thus not implementable
- there are not enough implementations of `urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0` yet
ZashIs version 0.13 the incorporation of previous LC's feedback?
Ge0rGZash: no, 0.13 is me pushing my own agenda
ZashGe0rG, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html could do with an update, I think it's meant to have that definition, or something
Ge0rGthere might be some overlap between last 0280 LC feedback and my agenda, though
Ge0rGjonas’: the lessons that we are learning from 0280 and 0313 are Very Important for the IM 2.0 compat translation
Ge0rGso +1 on the LC
Ge0rGI'll heat up my flamethrower.
jonas’the vote cannot succeed in this constellation
jonas’need to check the rules again
Ge0rG+2/3/-0 would probably result in a NO
jonas’yes, we need a majority of +1
jonas’we don’t have that
jonas’(and can’t have it anymore
jonas’(and can’t have it anymore)
jonas’though I agree with Ge0rG and hence change to +1
jonas’let’s see what dave says
jonas’4c) Start Last Call for XEP-0357: Push Notifications
Title: Push Notifications
This specification defines a way for an XMPP servers to deliver information for use in push notifications to mobile and other devices.
jonas’I think lots of folks have something to say about this
Ge0rGjonas’: I've reminded those folks over the last months to put out their pencils and fix the XEP
Ge0rG...to no avail.
danielWasn't that called before with no changes in between?
jonas’useful and specific on-list feedback would still be good, if we can get it
Ge0rG+1 to the LC, and I really hope it won't result in a pointless change-less -1 afterwards.
danielBut whatever +1
jonas’5) Outstanding Votes
Ge0rGjonas’: I've got a small AOB for 0280
jonas’daniel, unless I missed it, you’re still pending on the advancement of '402
jonas’6) Date of next
I hear Ge0rG has one.
jonas’hands the mic to Ge0rG
Ge0rGto the people who vote less-than-one to the 0280 LC (and that might include Future Dave): please elaborate what I can improve on the spec to change your mind.
Ge0rGdaniel, Zash: currently that is a question to you two
danielI just think that the situation of people think it's a dead end problematic xep hasn't changed much since last time
Ge0rGI don't see a viable replacement, though.
Ge0rGa viable *short term* replacement
danielWell im2 has very similar problems
Ge0rGalso what I said above, IM 2 will require a compat routing mode which will be more-or-less the Carbon+MAM rules
danielI guess it's a question of what do we do with xeps that we know aren't perfect but are still the best available solution
danielMaybe I was wrong with my 0
Ge0rGput them in deferred.
danielLet's see what the LC brings
jonas’is that a +1?
ZashSure, +1, LC away
Ge0rGZash: would you like to update 0226?
Ge0rGthanks very much :)
ZashPersonally I'd rather have simple general rules that don't need to change too often, or it'll be painful to roll out updates
Ge0rGZash: yeah, but we somehow failed to define the simple general rules when multi-device support was needed.
ZashLong lists of XEPs tend to become outdated
jonas’this sounds like something which could be moved to xsf@
danielI mean we sort of had the same topic at summit
danielYes doesn't have to be on council meeting time