XSF Discussion - 2013-09-18


  1. Lance has left
  2. Lance has joined
  3. Lance has left
  4. Lance has joined
  5. Lance has left
  6. Lance has joined
  7. stpeter has joined
  8. stpeter has left
  9. stpeter has joined
  10. Lance has joined
  11. stpeter has left
  12. stpeter has joined
  13. stpeter has left
  14. stpeter has joined
  15. stpeter has left
  16. intosi@ik.nu has left
  17. intosi@ik.nu has joined
  18. intosi@ik.nu has left
  19. intosi@ik.nu has joined
  20. bear has left
  21. Lloyd has joined
  22. Alex has joined
  23. Alex has left
  24. Alex has joined
  25. ralphm has left
  26. weizfan has joined
  27. weizfan hi,guys
  28. weizfan_1111 has joined
  29. weizfan_1111 anybody here
  30. weizfan_1111 oh,lazy guys
  31. weizfan_1111 why not getting up
  32. Alex weizfan_1111: how can we help you?
  33. weizfan_1111 i tired of silent
  34. weizfan_1111 why not say something
  35. Alex join another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent
  36. weizfan_1111 okay
  37. intosi@ik.nu has left
  38. intosi@ik.nu has joined
  39. weizfan_1111 Alex,can you recommend a c++ library for server?
  40. Alex jdev@conference.jabber.org is the venue to ask this question
  41. Alex its all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there
  42. weizfan_1111 has left
  43. Lloyd has left
  44. Lloyd has joined
  45. Alex has left
  46. stpeter has joined
  47. Lloyd has joined
  48. stpeter has left
  49. stpeter has joined
  50. stpeter has left
  51. stpeter has joined
  52. stpeter has left
  53. Lloyd has joined
  54. stpeter has joined
  55. stpeter has left
  56. stpeter has joined
  57. MattJ has left
  58. bear has joined
  59. Peter Waher has joined
  60. Alex has left
  61. MattJ has joined
  62. Florian has joined
  63. Ashley has joined
  64. Lance has joined
  65. arcriley has joined
  66. Ashley hey all — is it board meeting time?
  67. stpeter yes
  68. fippo has joined
  69. arcriley With an audience no less
  70. bear the council meeting is still going, so we may have a couple of minutes before starting
  71. stpeter oh weird
  72. stpeter I don't see bear here
  73. stpeter might need to rejoin
  74. Tobias has joined
  75. stpeter has left
  76. arcriley he's a moderator
  77. Ashley bear is in the list?
  78. Ashley s/?/.
  79. stpeter has joined
  80. stpeter ah, that's better
  81. stpeter presence issues
  82. stpeter anyway, joined from another account
  83. bear swift has been going into a zombie mode when my laptop hibernates
  84. Kev It probably doesn't notice until TCP times out. We should fix that.
  85. bear Ashley, Arc and myself - present
  86. bear Florian?
  87. bear Jason?
  88. Ashley i see Florian in the room roster
  89. stpeter Jason didn't reply
  90. bear forgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum
  91. m&m has joined
  92. bear also cannot spell today
  93. Florian Hi all
  94. stpeter simple majority for a quorum
  95. stpeter hi Florian :-)
  96. arcriley well we certainly have quorum now
  97. bear 4 out of 5 - let's call that a win and start
  98. Ashley drumroll
  99. bear remember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks
  100. Ashley was the primary agenda item engagement with that other standards body? iirc
  101. bear yes, that is the reason for today's meeting - for Peter to give us the info on what they want and what resources will be required
  102. stpeter right
  103. stpeter so, we received a "liaison request" from a technical committee at ISO
  104. stpeter TC 122, which does work on logistics and such
  105. stpeter it's sort-of "Internet of Things" related
  106. stpeter now, the ISO is a lot more formal than the XSF :-)
  107. Florian :)
  108. stpeter however, essentially they would like some folks to review their work on a usage of XMPP for notifications related to things like package delivery and vehicle tracking and such
  109. stpeter unfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions
  110. stpeter because of their access controls over things they are working on
  111. stpeter so they would like to establish a liaison relationship, which would enable us to assign a few people to participate in their work and sanity-check what they're developing before it gets released
  112. bear is the liason allowed to send the info to others for review?
  113. stpeter as I understand it, we would assign two or three people to review / participate
  114. stpeter there are a few questions that arise, of course
  115. stpeter e.g., how do we assign people (ask for volunteers among the membership)?
  116. Dave Cridland has joined
  117. Peter Waher (I can mention that myself and Joachim have worked with them for larger part of the year)
  118. stpeter since it's IoT-related, some people here might be interested
  119. Peter Waher (and that original participation request was sent on the IoT mailing list about a year ago)
  120. stpeter Peter Waher: ah, are you guys participating already through normal ISO processes?
  121. Peter Waher yes, through what is called IEEE/IEC/ISO P1451
  122. Peter Waher http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/InternetOfThings
  123. Peter Waher this is related
  124. stpeter another question is whether people we assign to be liaison experts are taken as speaking for the XSF, in which case we might want to have a consensus process for formulating our feedback
  125. Peter Waher they are various groups looking at similar thing
  126. Peter Waher s
  127. stpeter Peter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot
  128. stpeter how we handle these things on our side is up to us — e.g., we could assign just one person if we so please
  129. Peter Waher I'm president of a subgroup, relating to xml & xmpp telegrams
  130. stpeter or we could tell them that they already have some folks involved who know about XMPP and thus we don't see the need for a formal liaison relationship
  131. Ashley do we anticipate changes to XMPP itself, or simply new XEPs?
  132. bear that's why I was asking if the liason is allowed by the rules to pass on information for review
  133. stpeter Ashley: not changes to XMPP, and probably not any XEPs
  134. Ashley ok
  135. Peter Waher during the work we've done together, we've proposed XEP 0322-0326
  136. stpeter Peter Waher might know better, but I think they would write a document that says "here's how we're using XMPP for our use cases"
  137. Peter Waher This, they have done
  138. stpeter I see it as similar in some ways to what the OpenADR folks did with OpenADR 2.0
  139. Peter Waher and probably want us to double check
  140. Ashley right, make sense
  141. stpeter Peter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable
  142. Florian right
  143. Peter Waher they have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging
  144. stpeter e.g., I completed a review of the OpenADR 2.0 text about XMPP and suggested a few minor fixes, but mostly it seemed reasonable and I told them so
  145. Peter Waher so they probably want a third party to double check before publishing the standard
  146. stpeter yes
  147. stpeter thus one question is, do we see the need for a liaison relationship?
  148. stpeter if the Board would like, I'd be happy to be a liaison just to do what Peter suggests about reviewing what they come up with
  149. stpeter unlike OpenADR, ISO is more formal and thus requires a bit more process
  150. Dave Cridland A formal liason relationship would lend us some legitimacy, I'd imagine.
  151. Ashley that seems like a good way to go
  152. Florian I'd say: why not... don't really see any downsides here
  153. stpeter Dave: right
  154. Dave Cridland Which obviously costs us in terms of effort.
  155. Florian Dave Cridland: right
  156. arcriley stpeter are you volunteering?
  157. stpeter it helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)
  158. stpeter arcriley: yes, I'd volunteer to be a liaison since all it really means is I review yet another standards spec in my life :-)
  159. Ashley i look at it like building our ecosystem
  160. Florian2 has joined
  161. Florian2 Yeah
  162. Florian has left
  163. Peter Waher it would be great to build a broader concensus behind any IoT solutions the XSF proposes
  164. stpeter Peter Waher: agreed
  165. Peter Waher and spread knowledge of the area
  166. stpeter Peter Waher: unfortunately we don't have a lot of participants who know that space very well
  167. stpeter but that's a separate issue :-)
  168. Peter Waher I'm available for any comments, questions or doubts you may have
  169. Peter Waher And I'm sure Joachim is as well
  170. Kev Presumably that's what they're discussing, though, and what *we're* needed for is the XMPP side
  171. stpeter yes
  172. Kev and we do have some amount of knowledge about XMPP :)
  173. Dave Cridland I'd personally suggest that Peter Waher, if he's willing, be the actual liason, and have the review done by a smallish team (and/or the Council)
  174. stpeter it seems to me that they want a sanity check
  175. Kev In which case we'd probably want to pick someone well versed in the XMPP side of things.
  176. Kev (e.g. stpeter)
  177. Florian2 Yeah
  178. stpeter Dave: well, Peter and Joachim already participating, it seems
  179. stpeter ^ + are
  180. stpeter Peter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?
  181. Peter Waher I can be the liason, but for them to be satisfied, it would be excellent if stpeter or the council could approve by double checking any recommendations
  182. stpeter heck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on
  183. Peter Waher yes
  184. Dave Cridland Right, but I'd expect the liason to be in the awkward position of acting as translator more than anything else.
  185. stpeter Dave: translator how?
  186. Dave Cridland Translating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)
  187. Peter Waher It should be remembered that this request is probably originating in the desire to double check what has been proposed by myself and Joachim
  188. Peter Waher in a more formal manner
  189. Dave Cridland Ah. That might be awkward. :-)
  190. Florian2 Ah, right
  191. Peter Waher so, If somebody well established in the XMPP community (i.e. stpeter) or the entire XFS council would review any suggestions, it would address their concerns
  192. Dave Cridland "Yes, we'll check Peter Waher's work. We suggest Peter Waher should check it."
  193. stpeter hehehe
  194. Peter Waher :)
  195. Florian2 :)
  196. Florian2 Would anyone from the council be interested?
  197. stpeter Peter Waher: it might not be that they have any concerns with the feedback you've provided, but they don't know XMPP and they want to be Sure™
  198. Alex has joined
  199. Florian2 Alongside stpeter
  200. stpeter this is my sense of things, anyway
  201. Peter Waher I believe so too
  202. Peter Waher however, there
  203. Peter Waher 's one item of concern
  204. Kev Florian2: I guess I could.
  205. Florian2 Actually, we may not even need 2 people from the XSF
  206. Peter Waher and that's legacy binary encodings
  207. stpeter hey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P
  208. Peter Waher And I've been quite stubborn in explaining why it's not a good idea to continue down that road
  209. Florian2 stpeter: lol
  210. Peter Waher for interoperability's sake
  211. stpeter nods
  212. Peter Waher I've proposed the use of bits of binary, for instance, but it would create a solution nobody would be interested in
  213. stpeter but it's not really for us to tell them what bindings they need to support, right?
  214. Peter Waher exactly
  215. Peter Waher i've tries to explain pros and cons for different solutions
  216. Peter Waher and what I personally believe is the correct solution
  217. Peter Waher now, there are 3 proposed solutions
  218. stpeter it seems that their decisions about old binary vs. new XML (aka "legacy JSON") are something that's up to them
  219. Peter Waher 1) The XEPS 0322-0326
  220. Peter Waher 2) Bits of binary (not recommended)
  221. stpeter (although we might suggest that they might not want to send their binary encoding over XMPP because it makes more sense to send the XML representation)
  222. Peter Waher 3) a combination, where they use telegrams in (1), but encode binary field names using some kind of urn scheme
  223. stpeter ah
  224. stpeter well, this is something to work out in conversation with them
  225. Peter Waher I guess, if somebody could validate the pros and cons, they could feel safer taking a decision
  226. stpeter I'd prefer not to talk about the specifics much here because it's their IPR and their processes aren't all that open
  227. Peter Waher (y)
  228. stpeter (which itself raises an issue about broader review)
  229. Peter Waher They've sent us all documents, but we cannot forward them
  230. Peter Waher But they have no problems sending them to any participants
  231. arcriley so... the liason cannot forward them to the council for review?
  232. stpeter but if we can assign a few people or just me or whoever to advise them, then personally I don't see the need to open up the review to all XSF members or whatever (although perhaps we'd see advice from the Council somehow if we see the need)
  233. stpeter arcriley: good question
  234. stpeter arcriley: I just thought about that 10 minutes ago and I do not know the answer, but I can find out
  235. Peter Waher we've been clear on that point too: Any XEPs or documents leaving the XSF will be in the public domain
  236. arcriley if thats the case why don't we just appoint the entire council - that way they can discuss and review while still complying with their closed process
  237. Peter Waher They have discussed the possibility in publishing the documents in an open forum too...
  238. Dave Cridland Council discussions are (or have been, historically) public.
  239. stpeter arcriley: that's a possibility, although Council membership changes and as I understand it they'd want people to be appointed as individuals
  240. Peter Waher but today, the documents are still not public. Only they can send them to any participants
  241. Dave Cridland While it's within the Board's remit, I suspect, to propose the Council could hold those in camera, I'm not sure it's a precedent I'd like the Board to be setting.
  242. stpeter right
  243. Peter Waher I've been very consistent regarding openness
  244. arcriley ISO has got to have some precident in working with organizations like ours
  245. Florian2 Yeah
  246. Peter Waher They know it and respect it
  247. Peter Waher So I believe we can push that point
  248. bear this would have to be not a Council issue, even if all of the Council are part of the liason team
  249. stpeter well, the easiest thing is to appoint one or two people as individuals and not say that the XMPP Council will be reviewing things as a body
  250. bear that's what I was trying to say
  251. stpeter because I agree with Dave about not wanting to set precedents about working in huggermugger
  252. stpeter or in camera or whatever :P
  253. Ashley hey guys — i have to jump to another meeting
  254. Dave Cridland stpeter, "in camera" - s'latin, innit?
  255. bear Ashley - are you +1 on liason in general
  256. Ashley yes!
  257. bear k, more details to follow on the list, thanks for attending while you could
  258. arcriley it sounds like there's some questions to be determined before we can really move forward in a meaningful way though
  259. bear it sounds like we can respond "yes, but we have some followup questions"
  260. arcriley yup yup
  261. stpeter that seems reasonable
  262. stpeter "yes in principle"
  263. Florian2 Yup, sounds good
  264. stpeter so shall I work with the Board on a suitable reply and some follow-up questions?
  265. bear +1
  266. stpeter ok
  267. arcriley +1
  268. stpeter happy to have that discussion on the members@ list for transparency
  269. Florian2 +1
  270. stpeter transparency is good
  271. bear members@ works for this - will get more folks involved
  272. Peter Waher I would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence
  273. Florian2 bear: yeah
  274. Peter Waher feels awkward having to ask them what XSF sent to them, when being part of XSF and their working groups
  275. arcriley lol
  276. stpeter Peter Waher: if we discuss it on the members@ list, what we'll send will be in the open anyway :-)
  277. bear i'm all for peter cc'ing the members list in all mailings TBH
  278. Peter Waher (y)
  279. Florian2 bear: +1
  280. stpeter super
  281. bear should we meet again in a week to followup or will you need more time?
  282. stpeter that should be fine — I think we can work things out on the members@ list
  283. stpeter before then
  284. stpeter but scheduling a follow-up seems fine
  285. bear k, i'll email the list about a meeting next week
  286. Florian2 bear: great
  287. bear peter - do we have more to discuss and do you have the needed information?
  288. stpeter I have what I need and I don't personally have any other business, but we might want to ask if anyone else does :-)
  289. bear :)
  290. bear anything else to discuss/add ?
  291. Florian2 Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good
  292. stpeter BTW, thanks to everyone for the input and questions about our topic of interest, that was all good feedback
  293. stpeter I'm working out final details on a place to meet in Portland for the next Summit
  294. stpeter so that should be nailed down very soon (this week)
  295. bear the summit in portland should be very active
  296. stpeter yes, lots of security topics of interest these days
  297. Florian2 :)
  298. bear waits a couple more minutes before making the call to close the meeting
  299. bear k, I think we can call today's meeting done then
  300. Florian2 Alrighty :)
  301. bear thanks all for attending and thank you Peter for the work on this issue
  302. Florian2 Thanks all
  303. Florian2 See you next week
  304. bear i'll do the minutes email after I get done yelling at some servers
  305. stpeter great, I'll add the meeting to the calendar this time
  306. Peter Waher thanks, bye
  307. stpeter thanks Peter
  308. Florian2 has left
  309. Peter Waher has left
  310. stpeter time to head to the office, bbiab
  311. stpeter has left
  312. Dave Cridland has left
  313. fsteinel has joined
  314. fippo has left
  315. Tobias has joined
  316. Lance has joined
  317. m&m has left
  318. Lloyd has left
  319. fsteinel has left
  320. Ashley has left
  321. stpeter has joined
  322. stpeter has left
  323. stpeter has joined
  324. stpeter has left
  325. Tobias has left
  326. Ashley has joined
  327. fsteinel has joined
  328. fsteinel has left
  329. Lance has left
  330. Alex has left
  331. stpeter has joined
  332. Ashley has left
  333. Ashley has joined
  334. Ashley has left
  335. Ashley has joined
  336. Ashley has left
  337. Lance has joined
  338. stpeter has left