Olivier CrĂȘte spoke about someone formalising the psuedo-udp ft stuff from google as a "standard" jingle spec. is this in the XSF's inbox?
stpeter
not in the inbox yet
stpeter
well
mlundblad
I have somewhat mixed feelings about that...
stpeter
there is http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-httpft.html
mlundblad
yeah
mlundblad
I was under the impression that this would meerly be a jingle transport spec.
stpeter
ah
mlundblad
not sure, though...
stpeter
that one
stpeter
yeah, there's been talk about documenting that, but no action
mlundblad
maybe I'm slanting towards thinking that might be a good idea, compared to ice-tcp
mlundblad
but maybe not...
stpeter
the http-over-pseudo-tcp-over-udp stuff is kind of crazy, but that doesn't mean it's bad :)
mlundblad
I think maybe the http stuff is overkill, though
mlundblad
another crazy thing though, psuedo-tcp-over-udp-over-a-tcp-relayed-turn-candidate...
mlundblad
yikes
stpeter
heehee
Kevhas joined
Fritzyhas joined
Fritzyhas left
Fritzyhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphm
hi
Kev
Evening Ralph.
mlundbladhas left
stpeter
hiya
stpeter
brb
ralphm
warming up my foods
mlundbladhas joined
stpeter
me too :)
jkhiihas joined
Kev
Right, Hello meetingtime
ralphm
Hooray!
Kev
Matt and Remko are both online, just getting them to join.
MattJhas joined
remkohas joined
stpeter
gosh I love these people who go on vacation for a month -- how is that possible?
Kev
Sounds nice doesn't it? :)
ralphm
stpeter: come live in europe
stpeter
I did take a two-week vacation back in 1994, that was quite relaxing :P
Kev
Right.
Kev
So.
Kev
Stop. Meeting time.
Kev
1) Roll call.
Kev
Fritzy, Kev, MattJ, ralphm, remko.
ralphmgoes dmm, dm, dm, dm
Kev
2) Agenda bashing anyone?
MattJ
Not here
remko
nope
Kev
Ok then.
Kev
3) ProtoXEP - XMPP on Mobile Devices
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mobile.html
Accept as Experimental?
ralphm
yes, interesting matter
remko
indeed
Kev
I'm not objecting.
Kev
Fritzy / Matt?
Kev
Commenting on list's fine if you've not read it.
MattJ
No objection here, I'm glad someone finally wrote it up :)
stpeter
yep, that looks helpful
stpeter
plus I love it when someone other than me writes specs :)
MattJ
:)
Kev
stpeter: Well, Matt and I have a big stack waiting for limelight :)
ralphm
MattJ: how's that my-client-doesn't-support-SIFT-but-I-still-want-it feature?
MattJ
ralphm, which was that?
MattJ
or you mean the intelligent presence buffering?
ralphm
yeah, but such that I can tell my server to do it for a particular resource. Like 'Maemo'
MattJ
or a given disco identity? :)
ralphm
sure!
Kev
Ok, I think Fritzy's gone AFK, so moving on.
Kev
4) ProtoXEP - Digital Signatures in XMPP
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dsig.html
Accept as Experimental?
ralphm
+1, I'm curious about the TBDs
remko
no objection
Kev
Heh, you like it more than I do.
MattJ
Why is it necessary to encode the contents like that?
Kev
I'm not convinced about signed messages being illegible to non-signing clients - i.e. you could never send signed messages to a MUC.
MattJ
Even e2e had some normalization routines, presumably for the same reasons
stpeter
I wonder if anyone will sign their XMPP stanzas, given that precious few seem to sign their email messages and that technology has been around for a long time
Kev
stpeter: Well, in email I can still read your mails.
Kev
Even though I don't process and verify the signatures.
ralphm
MattJ: from what I've been told, normalization like in XMLSig is quite horrible
Kev
That's not true here.
remko
kev: indeed
remko
kev: that doesn't really sound very good
stpeternods
remko
it's probably a workaround for the whitespace etc.
remko
but still, there shoudl be a better one
MattJ
ralphm, e2e did seem to manage, minus one case in the XEP that suggested stripping whitespace in a given instance was enough normalization
Kev
Well, I quite like the copy-and-sign approach, where you encode, like this, what you signed so it's there for verifying clients, and other clients get it in plaintext.
Kev
But I'm not winning this argument with Kurt, so I'm abstaining on this non-vote.
stpeter
IMHO it's early days for signing
stpeter
heck, it's still early days for encryption!
remko
stpeter: true
Kev
So, where are we?
ralphm
Well, I'm ok with it being a XEP, not necessarily thinking this is the best approach.
Kev
Remko and Ralph are +1, Matt was ...?
Kev
and Fritzy's AFK :)
MattJ
+1 to publishing
Kev
That actually raises an interesting question - if a Council member is in the room, but AFK, for a meeting, does that count as present?
MattJ
But I 1) think it needs some discussion going forward 2) don't think it's going to see implementations like this
remko
i agree with matt
stpeter
if a tree falls in the forest...
ralphm
Kev: does that actually matter?
stpeternods to MattJ
Kev
ralphm: Well, stats are kept on people's voting and attendance history, so people can do sensible things with voting in Sept/Oct.
Kev
Whether people use them is another matter, but they're there.
Kev
Anyway.
MattJ
I could easily leave my client idle here 24/7 then :)
Kev
MattJ: Right.
Kev
5) Winding down Council.
Anything we want/need to do before the end of term?
Kev
Peter'd like us to get some file transfer headway made.
MattJ
I've nothing to say that we didn't discuss on list
MattJ
Archiving, etc.
Kev
Yes, well, I'm happy to push my specs out if you are yours :)
ralphm
file transfer would be nice indeed
MattJ
FWIW I have some comments on Jingle (it's a pain to implement)
ralphm
MattJ: in general?
stpeter
Kev: well, given that I promised to review the reviews of file transfer, I have action items I can take
Kev
stpeter: Jolly good, nothing for me to do yet, then.
Kev
7) Date of next meeting.
Kev
Next Monday, assuming we have things to discuss?
ralphm
yes
stpeter
:)
MattJ
ralphm, well I'm implementing Jingle File Transfer, the main Jingle spec defines a lot of things vaguely that aren't followed up on in JFT
remko
+1
Kev
8) Any other business?
MattJ
The spec was clearly split into signalling/RTP at some point, the split wasn't quite right IMHO
stpeter
MattJ: "the spec" = 166?
ralphm
MattJ: ah, so the specs are unclear? Not necessarily bad?
MattJ
stpeter, yes
MattJ
ralphm, I think (hope) mostly just unclear
stpeter
Kev: Council members need to decide if they are going to stand for consideration again, I suppose