- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
-
Kev
!ping
- Tobias has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- ralphm has joined
- ralphm waves
-
Kev
Hi Ralph.
- remko has joined
-
Kev
Hi Remko.
-
remko
hidiho
-
Kev
Give me 60 seconds to finish the iteam minutes, and see if Matt gets back in time.
- psa has joined
-
psa
howdy
-
Kev
Hi Peter. You should be relaxing :p
-
psa
:P
-
remko
hi peter
-
psa
mostly just catching up today
-
psa
lots of errands
-
psa
hi Remko!
-
Kev
Ok, let's get started and we can backpedal if Matt arrives in the next 3 minutes or so.
-
ralphm
I cleared out much of my unread mailinglist stuff
-
Kev
1) Roll call. Kev, Ralph, Remko here, Matt probably not here with apologies.
-
Kev
ralphm: I think you're current, indeed, thanks.
- psa has 1750 messages in his inbox :(
-
Kev
2) Agenda bashing.
-
Kev
Anyone?
-
ralphm
psa: I had over 3000
-
psa
ouch
-
Kev
I think I'm on ~1000. Only 257 threads with unread messages, though.
-
Kev
Anyway.
-
Kev
I'll assume that's a "no-bashing" :)
-
remko
no bashing
-
Kev
(Just had a 20minutes iteam meeting, going to try and beat that)
-
psa
heh
-
Kev
3) XEP-0136: Message Archiving http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0136-1.2.html Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0136/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc1 Votes needed from Kev, Matt, Remko
-
ralphm
(I didn't actually read most of it)
-
Kev
Matt voted +1 today.
-
remko
i promise to vote on-list
-
psa
+1 given that today is a snipperdag for me ;-)
-
Kev
remko: today is the last day for voting on this.
-
ralphm
snipperdagen WTF
-
remko
psa: i have a snipperdag tomorrow ;-)
-
remko
kev: ok, in that case +0
-
ralphm
Matt did have some remarks
-
remko
well, +1 actually, i did read them
-
Kev
I'm unhappy with this, because it feels wrong.
-
ralphm
about the complexity
-
Kev
It feels complicated, and not fully thought out.
-
Kev
I don't have any one specific exception to it, though.
- psa nods
-
remko
kev: so, what do we do about this then?
-
Kev
My problem is that 136 was mostly workable before all this complexity, and was Draft. It's now going to be more complicated, without any interop testing and no idea how well it'll work.
-
ralphm
is it about the new stuff, the rewrite or the whole thing?
-
psa
naturally, most of it is too complicated
-
ralphm
(the complexity issues)
-
Kev
ralphm: it wasn't trivial to start with, but the new stuff feels very complex.
- psa looks at the author list
-
psa
all the Ian stuff is too complicated
-
Kev
remko: yes, that's the question, I'm debating whether to block it until I'm convinced it's sensible, or not.
-
remko
right
-
ralphm
Kev: so if you really feel it needs a second look, -1 it?
-
remko
the xep is already very complicated indeed
-
Kev
I don't want to be 'that guy' if it's just me and the world wants to move on.
-
ralphm
Kev: it is our job, really
-
psa
we've killed off most of that stuff -- looking forward to an end to XEP-0155 too
-
Kev
psa: as one of the authors, how do you feel about the complaints?
-
psa
the entire spec is too complex
-
ralphm
the spec or the protocol itself?
-
psa
clearly people have implemented it
-
psa
the protocol
-
Kev
psa: they've only implemented the old one though, haven't they?
-
Kev
I thought there was no server support for the new stuff.
-
Kev
If we've got interoperable implementations, I don't have much of an argument to have.
-
psa
Alexander and Yann have implemented the new stuff AFAIK, in ejabberd and gajim respectively
-
remko
i thought there was
-
Kev
Ah.
-
ralphm
do the implementations implement all of the (old) aspects
-
ralphm
?
-
psa
ralphm: that, I'm not sure
-
psa
ralphm: quite possibly not
-
ralphm
I mean, if most of the complexity is not implemented, maybe we can cut stuff there?
-
Kev
I'll +0 it, then, but can we attach a Council note saying that I'm uncomfortable with the complexity, and that it should have a review and possible simplification if needed?
-
psa
the XSF needs an interoperability process so that we can reduce complexity before pushing things to Final
- fippo has joined
-
ralphm
psa: yeah
-
remko
i'm +0ing too
-
psa
Kev: that does not seem unreasonable
-
psa
IMHO we need to take a close look at this one
-
Kev
Excellent, thanks.
-
psa
and simplify
-
ralphm
so that basically means that we are now accepting the changes but don't like it?
-
Kev
This is something I do actually care about - server side history is great.
-
psa
right now the protocol has too many bells and whistles and options
-
remko
*nod*
-
Kev
ralphm: if half of council are in favour of the changes (you and Matt), half of Council don't like it, but don't have a specific complaint to block with (Remko and me), and there are interoperable implementations of the new stuff...I think that's a good summary, yeah.
-
psa
as a first step, I think we need to gather a list of implementations (not sure if Google ever implemented it with this namespace) and poll them regarding which particular features they implement
-
ralphm
Kev: I'm ok with the changes, yes. On the complexity, maybe the whole thing needs to be reconsidered
-
psa
ralphm: yeah
-
Kev
psa: I think that'd be good.
-
psa
so perhaps the Council can write up a note that we can add to the spec
-
Kev
There's also scope for a Simplified Message Archiving spec if such a thing is needed, or whatever.
-
ralphm
so a Call for Experience
-
Kev
psa: I'll take that action.
-
Kev
ralphm: only with a little c, because it's not a CfE :)
-
Kev
Or are we allowed to issue those without advancement?
-
psa
ralphm: well, we issue a CfE only when we want to move ot Final
-
ralphm
sure we can
-
psa
hmm
-
Kev
In any case, yes.
-
Kev
I'll write a note, and we'll ask for experience.
-
psa
we *have* issued those only before advancing to Final
-
Kev
14 minutes gone, let's get a wriggle on :)
-
ralphm
we want to move this eventually, and as-is we don't seem to like it much
-
psa
doesn't mean we couldn't do so under other circumstances
-
Kev
4) XEP-0184: Message Receipts http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0184/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc7 Updated to reflect Kev's objections. Accept 1.1rc7?
-
Kev
I'm +1 after the latest changes.
-
Kev
Ralph's already +1d
-
psa
I like it much better now
-
psa
Kev's criticisms were quite warranted
-
ralphm
good changes, indeed
-
remko
kev: is there still time to vote for this tomorrow for me?
-
Kev
remko: yes, voting on this starts tonight, you've got a fortnight.
-
remko
ok
-
Kev
5) Distributed MUC http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc2.html Another distributed MUC proposal - accept as Experimental?
-
remko
+1
-
Kev
Would it be better to accept this as a competing Experimental, or have the XEP authors work together on the existing Experimental?
- psa just realized he has an "AOB" item
-
Kev
I'm not opposed to either approach.
-
Kev
psa / fippo: what are your thoughts?
-
ralphm
I prefer both
-
remko
i don't mind publishing this as an experimental for aske of history, and then merging both
-
psa
I admit that I didn't get to read fippo's document as I had hoped to on the flight back from IETF 77
-
remko
s/aske/sake/
-
Kev
psa: I have comments on both dmucs, but I'm happy to have both on the vine.
-
Kev
So I'm not not objecting to publishing.
-
psa
I like to publish documents :)
-
psa
as is well-known
-
Kev
Ok.
-
psa
in the early days we had 3 or 4 pubsub specs, as Ralph no doubt recalls
-
ralphm
dmuc2 is not complete yet. I am especially interested in the netsplit/join stuff
-
ralphm
psa: indeed
-
Kev
psa: and you added all four together to get the monster we have now? :)
-
psa
dmuc1 is not complete, either
-
ralphm
psa: sure
-
Kev
No, both are WIPs
- lynX has joined
-
Kev
Anyway, shall we move onto 6) Fifth member. Nathan and Jack standing.
-
ralphm
Kev: actually, no. The first pubsub spec worked with IQs :-)
-
ralphm
Where are they standing?
-
Kev
Shush.
-
ralphm
:-P
-
Kev
I'm sure either Jack or Fritzy would be a fine fifth member.
-
ralphm
indeed
-
psa
[oh, I have two AOB items...]
-
psa
Kev: as am I
-
Kev
Given that Jack's done this before, and he's on Board, I'm inclined to suggest Nathan for some fresh perspective, and to avoid getting too inbred, but I'd be very happy with either.
-
remko
same comment from me.
-
remko
it also seemed that jack was willing to do this more as a fallback, but i might be wrong
-
Kev
I asked Fabio as well, as he applied at the start of the session, but he's snowed under at the moment.
-
psa
despite the fact that I lack a vote in the matter, I agree with the sentiment of having new people on the Council -- it's a form of recycling
-
Kev
ralphm: what think you on Jack and Nathan?
-
ralphm
Kev: I had the same feeling
-
ralphm
and I'm sure Jack just wants the spot filled
-
Kev
Ok, we'll wait for Matt to express an opinion on-list, but that looks like Fritzy unless some terrible secret comes forward.
-
psa
heh
-
Kev
Ok, AOB. I believe someone's waiting in the wings with two items...
- psa starts the "Fritzy is a spy!" meme
-
ralphm
since there is no actual process, do we vote or is it a humming thing?
-
psa
ok, AOB
-
Kev
ralphm: we vote. I'm assuming that until Matt votes we have the chance to revoke our previous votes, though, thus not taking it as done yet.
-
ralphm
ok
- Kev points at his presence.
-
psa
I think it's a vote but that's not explicit at http://xmpp.org/council/policies.shtml
-
psa
ok
-
psa
first AOB, Thursday is April 1 :P
-
Kev
psa: when I checked the bylaws, I believe it said 'vote'
-
remko
oh no
-
remko
will we be fooled again?
-
psa
so I might cook something up for April 1, but I haven't come up with anything yet
-
Kev
remko: Guess who I'm listening to at the moment ;)
-
ralphm
and select a new member from among the applicants.
-
Kev
psa: OK. It's not strictly vital to have an AFD post, you know.
-
psa
last week was busy (as were all the weeks leading up to IETF 77)
-
psa
Kev: true -- I prefer quality over quantity
-
psa
second AOB
-
remko
don't leave us hanging here
-
psa
at IETF 77 I met with a guy who has an implementation of http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxe.html for whiteboarding (so that includes http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard.html I suppose)
-
psa
and he is working on fixes to that spec
-
Kev
Oh, great.
-
remko
excellent, taht spec needed some love
-
psa
in fact I heard from someone else recently who has implemented it
-
ralphm
this is the muc based one, yeah?
-
psa
ralphm: it can go through MUC
-
psa
the guy I met with implemented it over link-local
-
psa
ralphm: but it doesn't need to go over MUC
-
ralphm
ah
-
psa
anyway, I wanted you guys to know that we might have a revised version to consider soon for publication
-
ralphm
cool
-
Kev
I seem to recall that we had discussions about this at Fosdem.
-
psa
that's it from me
-
Kev
Although possibly it was at dinner.
-
psa
Kev: I don't recall discussions, but I wasn't there on Friday
-
Kev
Oh, I remember
-
Kev
It was how you can use whiteboarding over muc assuming the muc knows nothing about whiteboarding
-
psa
yes
-
Kev
but if you /do/ have a whiteboarding-enabled muc, it can make things much better for people joining an active whiteboard later.
-
psa
right
-
Kev
Ok, that's easy to put into any spec.
-
ralphm
I am wondering if the suggestions around pubsub in mucs would help this effort
-
Kev
So, we've a minute over my half hour tolerance.
-
psa
nothing more from me
-
Kev
Unless there are any other other businesses, I suggest we close.
-
psa
next meeting?
-
Kev
OH, next ...
-
Kev
right
-
Kev
same time next week?
-
ralphm
next week
-
Kev
Ah, no.
-
Kev
It's Easter Monday.
-
Kev
Shall we treat ourselves to a week off?
-
ralphm
ok
-
Kev
Next meeting same time a fortnight today, then.
-
remko
sounds good
-
psa
WFM
-
Kev
Excellent, thanks all.
- Kev bangs the gavel.
-
remko
thanks
-
psa
thanks guys
- psa wanders off to heat up some lunch
-
Kev
I'll sort out minutes before too long.
-
psa
thanks
-
psa
I'll soon go back to being offline :)
-
ralphm
psa: noooo
-
ralphm
psa: about XEP-0060, the remarks around node deletion with redirect are basically this:
-
ralphm
1) it uses jid/node attributes, rather than the uri thing I have implemented
-
ralphm
2) There is no mention of the <redirect/> being sent along with notifications.
-
ralphm
actually I only implemented 2 with a <delete node='test'><redirect uri='xmpp:example.org?;node=test2'></delete>
-
ralphm
and did not implement the stuff for requesting delete with redirect, because that's internal to my implementation
-
psa
ok
-
ralphm
I am not really wedded to using URIs, per se
- remko has left
-
psa
URI is consistent with http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.13.html#example-44
-
ralphm
except that is not allowed by Core
-
psa
i.e., the <gone/> error in XMPP core
-
ralphm
'cause that mentions that the character data must be a JID
-
psa
even in bis?
-
ralphm
no in 3920
-
ralphm
I think URI is better, but then we need to grandfather JIDs in
- mlundblad has joined
-
ralphm
(e.g. by accepting schema-less URIs)
-
psa
yes
-
ralphm
a redirect on node acces example should be in XEP-0060, next to the one you linked to
-
ralphm
and then we now get to decide on using URIs or jid/node for the delete+redirect request and notification
-
psa
what do you mean by "2) There is no mention of the <redirect/> being sent along with notifications."?
-
ralphm
in a delete event notification sent out to (former) subscribers of the node
-
ralphm
it should include the redirect
-
psa
you mean at http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.13.html#example-158
-
psa
yes
-
psa
we need the redirect there
-
ralphm
this is essential for making redirects work
-
ralphm
yes
-
ralphm
so /that/ is actually the only thing I implemented
-
psa
that = with <redirect/> ?
-
psa
er
-
psa
without
- Kev has left
-
ralphm
delete notification with redirect
-
psa
ok
-
psa
that's better
-
psa
(if a redirect is in place, naturally :)
-
ralphm
I didn't implement 8.4.1
-
ralphm
because node deletion is internal to my implementation
-
ralphm
yes, of course it is optional
- Kev has left
-
ralphm
so with jid/node it would look like this:
-
ralphm
<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'> <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'> <delete node='princely_musings'>/> </event> </message>
-
ralphm
oops
-
ralphm
<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'> <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'> <delete node='princely_musings'> <redirect jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' node='something_else'/> </delete> </event> </message>
-
ralphm
vs.
-
ralphm
<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'> <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'> <delete node='princely_musings'> <redirect uri='xmpp:pubsub.shakespeare.lit?;node=something_else'/> </delete> </event> </message>
-
psa
right
-
ralphm
Using URIs has the potential of hybrid protocol solutions
-
ralphm
I am not sure if we need to cater for that
-
ralphm
the only reason to use URIs in the error element is because it requires character data
-
psa
true
-
ralphm
and URIs are an easy way to specify JID+node
-
psa
they look funny, but they are easy :)
-
ralphm
it is still too bad the first element is required (even if it may be empty)
-
ralphm
anyway, in the end I have no real preference
- psa shrugs
-
ralphm
the uri stuff is currently in wokkel
-
ralphm
but the only working deployment is under my control
-
ralphm
(that I know of)
-
psa
I think URIs are preferable simply because new subscribers are going to receive an XMPP <gone/> error with a URI anyway (under 3920bis)
-
psa
the lack of a <redirect/> error in the examples right now is a simple spec bug so I will fix that
-
psa
s/error/element/
-
ralphm
ok, let's go with URIs then
-
psa
+1
-
ralphm
leaves the possibility to go to PuSH or some other fancy other thing
-
psa
yep
-
ralphm
now I am going to relax a bit. Have a good snipperdag!
-
psa
:)
-
psa
ralphm: where do we stand on IQ notifications?
-
ralphm
oh, nobody replied to my post
-
psa
ah I see it
-
psa
I'll try to do that tomorrow
- psa starts a reply as a reminder
-
psa
thanks for the reply
-
ralphm
drop me a line to chat on it, if needed
-
psa
ok
-
psa
will do
-
ralphm
cool
-
psa
now, back to our regularly schedule snipperdag :)
-
ralphm
:-)
-
psa
+d
-
psa
thanks, Ralph!
-
ralphm
and you
- psa disappears in a puff of smoke ;-)
- psa has left
- ralphm has left
- fippo has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
- Tobias has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- ralphm has joined
- remko has joined
- psa has joined
- fippo has joined
- lynX has joined
- remko has left
- mlundblad has joined
- Kev has left
- Kev has left
- psa has left
- ralphm has left
- fippo has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left