XMPP Council - 2020-03-18


  1. Ge0rG

    Oh, it looks like the vote update mail I didn't finish went down in a laptop crash.

  2. jonas’

    'tis time

  3. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  4. jonas’

  5. daniel

    Hi

  6. Ge0rG

    Good morning everyone!

  7. jonas’

    I don’t expect a dwd, but Zash was active in another room a few minutes ago

  8. Zash

    Hey

  9. jonas’

    alright

  10. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  11. jonas’

    anything to add/remove?

  12. Zash

    None here

  13. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update - ProtoXEP: Reminders - Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0184 - Calls in progress: None.

  14. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  15. jonas’

    4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0184 Title: Message Delivery Receipts URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html Abstract: 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.

  16. Ge0rG

    That's a tough one. There was some feedback, and part of it I'd consider as "very important"

  17. jonas’

    I agree

  18. Ge0rG

    I'm pretty sure the original authors are very busy, so looks like we need to re-assign or to find a Shepherd of sorts.

  19. daniel

    I'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

  20. jonas’

    I admit to not have read the full thread yet, so I’m hesitant to shepherd.

  21. Zash

    I think I'll have to re-read that thread. So, on-list.

  22. Ge0rG

    There are two possible ways forward: 1) do some eitorial clean-up and modernization without bumping 2) do the crazy multi-ACK namespace bump

  23. Ge0rG

    all that said, I'm -1 to advance it as-is

  24. daniel

    I'm against 2

  25. jonas’

    I’m also against (2). I’d rather get '333 bumped in such a way.

  26. Ge0rG

    and given my lack of time, I can't responsibly promise to step up to do #1

  27. Zash

    I think it's mostly fine, but some clarification never hurts

  28. Ge0rG

    jonas’: there were strong arguments for the per-message ACKing of 0184 that isn't available in 0333

  29. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I meant to implicitly mutate '333 to do multi-message acks

  30. Ge0rG

    but maybe I'm biased in that regard, and what I see as strong arguments is just a "meh" for other readers.

  31. Zash

    Different implementations / implementers have different requirements? :)

  32. Ge0rG

    jonas’: that would be rather weird

  33. Zash

    jonas’, doesn't it already, in a forward-moving pointer way?

  34. jonas’

    either way, I see we can’t advance it

  35. jonas’

    Zash, but message loss

  36. daniel

    I'm -1 and I'd suggest we do some minor cleanups and advance them

  37. Ge0rG

    jonas’: adding a new version to 0184 and a server-side muxing/demuxing compat is much more straight-forward

  38. jonas’

    daniel, will you do the cleanups?

  39. daniel

    I haven't even gotten around my own xeps

  40. Ge0rG

    shouldn't we formally ping the authors first?

  41. jonas’

    Ge0rG, true

  42. jonas’

    so let’s do that. I’m on-list for now

  43. Ge0rG

    I feel like I'd like to do the 0184 editing, but I lack the time

  44. Ge0rG

    so if somebody wearing a chair or an editor hat could remind me periodically, this could happen in a reasonable timeframe

  45. jonas’

    next:

  46. jonas’

    I’ll ping the authors with my editor hat, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll nag you

  47. jonas’

    next:

  48. jonas’

    4b) Start Last Call for XEP-0280: Message Carbons Title: Message Carbons URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Abstract: In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation, outbound messages are carbon-copied to all interested resources.

  49. jonas’

    that’s a fun one

  50. Zash

    again?

  51. jonas’

    someone™ suggested it

  52. jonas’

    I’m +0

  53. Ge0rG ,oO( I'm )-1 on principle.

  54. Ge0rG ,oO( I'm -1 on principle. )

  55. jonas’

    is that a formal vote?

  56. Ge0rG

    no.

  57. daniel

    I don't think a LC will yield widely different results to last time

  58. jonas’

    I personally think that '280 should not be touched anymore and any energy should go in '409 (IM 2.0)

  59. Ge0rG

    I 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

  60. Zash

    Is version 0.13 the incorporation of previous LC's feedback?

  61. Ge0rG

    Zash: no, 0.13 is me pushing my own agenda

  62. Zash

    Ge0rG, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html could do with an update, I think it's meant to have that definition, or something

  63. Ge0rG

    there might be some overlap between last 0280 LC feedback and my agenda, though

  64. Ge0rG

    jonas’: the lessons that we are learning from 0280 and 0313 are Very Important for the IM 2.0 compat translation

  65. jonas’

    Ge0rG, indeed

  66. Ge0rG

    so +1 on the LC

  67. Ge0rG

    I'll heat up my flamethrower.

  68. Zash

    +0

  69. daniel

    +0

  70. jonas’

    the vote cannot succeed in this constellation

  71. jonas’

    methinksk

  72. jonas’

    methinks

  73. jonas’

    need to check the rules again

  74. Ge0rG

    +2/3/-0 would probably result in a NO

  75. jonas’

    yes, we need a majority of +1

  76. jonas’

    we don’t have that

  77. jonas’

    (and can’t have it anymore

  78. jonas’

    (and can’t have it anymore)

  79. jonas’

    though I agree with Ge0rG and hence change to +1

  80. Ge0rG

    jonas’: yaaay!

  81. jonas’

    let’s see what dave says

  82. jonas’

    moving on

  83. jonas’

    4c) Start Last Call for XEP-0357: Push Notifications Title: Push Notifications URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html Abstract: This specification defines a way for an XMPP servers to deliver information for use in push notifications to mobile and other devices.

  84. jonas’

    +1

  85. jonas’

    I think lots of folks have something to say about this

  86. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I've reminded those folks over the last months to put out their pencils and fix the XEP

  87. Ge0rG

    ...to no avail.

  88. daniel

    Wasn't that called before with no changes in between?

  89. jonas’

    useful and specific on-list feedback would still be good, if we can get it

  90. Ge0rG

    +1 to the LC, and I really hope it won't result in a pointless change-less -1 afterwards.

  91. daniel

    But whatever +1

  92. Zash

    +1

  93. jonas’

    alright

  94. jonas’

    5) Outstanding Votes

  95. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I've got a small AOB for 0280

  96. jonas’

    daniel, unless I missed it, you’re still pending on the advancement of '402

  97. jonas’

    Ge0rG, noted

  98. daniel

    +1

  99. jonas’

    thanks

  100. jonas’

    6) Date of next

  101. jonas’

    +1 wwfm

  102. jonas’

    +1 wfm

  103. Zash

    +1

  104. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  105. Ge0rG

    +1

  106. jonas’

    7) AOB I hear Ge0rG has one.

  107. jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG

  108. Ge0rG

    to 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.

  109. Ge0rG

    *crickets*

  110. Ge0rG

    daniel, Zash: currently that is a question to you two

  111. daniel

    I just think that the situation of people think it's a dead end problematic xep hasn't changed much since last time

  112. Ge0rG

    I don't see a viable replacement, though.

  113. jonas’

    '409?

  114. Zash

    IM 2?

  115. jonas’

    that

  116. Ge0rG

    a viable *short term* replacement

  117. daniel

    Well im2 has very similar problems

  118. Ge0rG

    also what I said above, IM 2 will require a compat routing mode which will be more-or-less the Carbon+MAM rules

  119. daniel

    I 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

  120. daniel

    Maybe I was wrong with my 0

  121. Ge0rG

    put them in deferred.

  122. daniel

    Let's see what the LC brings

  123. jonas’

    is that a +1?

  124. Zash

    Sure, +1, LC away

  125. Ge0rG

    Zash: would you like to update 0226?

  126. Ge0rG

    thanks very much :)

  127. Zash

    Personally I'd rather have simple general rules that don't need to change too often, or it'll be painful to roll out updates

  128. Ge0rG

    Zash: yeah, but we somehow failed to define the simple general rules when multi-device support was needed.

  129. Zash

    Long lists of XEPs tend to become outdated

  130. jonas’

    this sounds like something which could be moved to xsf@

  131. jonas’

    adjurn?

  132. daniel

    I mean we sort of had the same topic at summit

  133. daniel

    Yes doesn't have to be on council meeting time

  134. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  135. Ge0rG

    thanks, jonas’

  136. jonas’

    Thanks all, thanks Tedd

  137. Zash

    Thanks jonas’

  138. Ge0rG

    thanks, Tedd