XMPP Council - 2010-12-15

  1. linuxwolf

    wow, I'm early for once

  2. Fritzy


  3. linuxwolf

    And a Fritzy has appeared!

  4. linuxwolf


  5. Kev

    Three down.

  6. Kev

    Matt is joining.

  7. Kev

    Ralph has also been poked, but not responded.

  8. Kev

    So, shall we start?

  9. Kev

    1) Roll call

  10. linuxwolf


  11. Fritzy


  12. MattJ waves

  13. Fritzy


  14. Kev


  15. Kev

    2) Agenda bashing.

  16. Fritzy


  17. MattJ


  18. linuxwolf

    a note at the end from me

  19. Kev


  20. Kev

    3) Interop summary.

  21. Kev

    So, the interop event happened.

  22. Kev

    It started badly without much of a plan, I appointed myself 'in charge of stuff', there was a plan, it went very well.

  23. MattJ


  24. Fritzy

    I read the thread on it. Sounds like you made it productive.

  25. Kev

    We learned a bit about what we need to do next time, and discussion is starting to happen about this on the interop list.

  26. Fritzy

    any interesting results?

  27. Kev

    There's a report on the XSF blog.

  28. dwd

    I'd note from the floor that the interop testing done on SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS was of quite some importance outside the XSF.

  29. Kev

    Fritzy: Well, at the end of the week, everyone participating was more conformant than at the start.

  30. Kev

    Which is quite a result, relaly.

  31. Kev


  32. linuxwolf


  33. Fritzy

    sounds good to me!

  34. dwd

    I'd also note that another interop event I've been invoved in increased its setup time to an entire week for the third event, so our spending two days on that is a *small* amount of time, relatively speaking.

  35. Kev

    It was surprising to me that the general standard of TLS handling was so high.

  36. Fritzy

    between servers

  37. Fritzy


  38. Kev

    So it does seem, largely, a deployment issue these days that s2s is often insecure.

  39. Kev

    Yes, s2s.

  40. MattJ


  41. Kev

    The only client that did the scripted testing was Swift.

  42. Kev

    There've been suggestions that the next interop should look at other low level stuff, with internationalisation seeming a sensible choice.

  43. dwd

    That's not to say that was the only client involved, though - a few used parts of the test network for various things.

  44. MattJ

    which is fine

  45. Kev

    dwd: Yes, I'm assuming everyone can read the report.

  46. Fritzy

    Will do.

  47. dwd

    Kev, It's on the new-fangled web thing, I didn't know everyone had it.

  48. Kev

    I don't think there's much more to say about it, but I think Council could consider whether it has a roll in the test plan for next time.

  49. dwd

    (Or even a role)

  50. Kev

    Maybe it doesn't, but it would seem to me that of the various XSF bodies, Council are the ones most likely to be thinking about interoperability requirements.

  51. Fritzy

    that makes sense.

  52. MattJ


  53. dwd

    There was also the suggestion concerning the server and client lists and the relationship with the interops.

  54. MattJ

    Next time I think perhaps council should draw up the tests

  55. MattJ

    and make them known further in advance of the interop

  56. Kev

    Yes, there was also discussion that clients and servers shouldn't be listed on xmpp.org unless they participate in the interop events, but that doesn't sound Councilish.

  57. Kev

    MattJ: Yep.

  58. Kev

    Righty, I think that's the interop done.

  59. ralphm

    Kev: agreed

  60. Kev

    linuxwolf: What did you want to add to the agenda

  61. ralphm

    I could imagine some interopmatrix

  62. Kev


  63. dwd

    I certainly think that indicating on those lists which ones *did* participate seems sensible.

  64. Fritzy

    Also, test preparation can be an open thing a week ahead of time -- something people are available to help with before testing is expected to start -- in muc and everything.

  65. remko

    dwd: *nod* It's a plus if you do, not a bad thing if you don't

  66. linuxwolf

    some upcoming items of work

  67. Kev

    Go for it.

  68. Kev

    Fritzy: Yes, this is all good. Jump on the interop list and discuss :)

  69. Kev

    linuxwolf: ... which are?

  70. linuxwolf

    so, we're working out some issues and their solutions regarding multiple resources

  71. Kev


  72. Kev

    http://doomsong.co.uk/extensions/render/multiple-clients.html ?

  73. linuxwolf

    plus a refresh of vcard

  74. ralphm

    linuxwolf: refresh?

  75. linuxwolf

    well, since an XML vcard specification is actually going to make it out of WG discussion, some of us feel it's time to also update (-:

  76. Kev

    linuxwolf: I did poke Joe about some updates I wanted to do to Mine a few months back, but he never replied.

  77. linuxwolf

    Kev: he's busy, and that brings me to the next piece

  78. Kev

    linuxwolf: That sounds new-fangled and exciting.

  79. ralphm

    linuxwolf: sounds nice, but any indication when?

  80. linuxwolf

    ralphm: it's an IETF WG, so that's still unknown (-:

  81. ralphm

    (also, does it include some way to indicate a JID?)

  82. ralphm

    linuxwolf: it seems this is kinda pending since 2000

  83. linuxwolf

    most of what we're doing with multiple resources is best practices, plus a bias toward message carbons

  84. linuxwolf

    ralphm: yes, but now there's actually consensus

  85. linuxwolf

    it's truly amazing to me (-:

  86. linuxwolf

    I'm trying to find the people who will actual work on these specs, but it looks like most of them will be moi

  87. ralphm

    not holding my breath C-:

  88. dwd


  89. linuxwolf


  90. Kev

    linuxwolf: Have you seen protoxep-multiple-clients?

  91. linuxwolf

    Kev: yes…since you just sent it to me

  92. linuxwolf


  93. remko

    dwd: that looks even more verbose than the vcard before, nice

  94. dwd

    PSA's the responsible AD. Plus we could kick off an experimental XEP referencing the draft.

  95. ralphm

    it seems extensible, so hooray

  96. linuxwolf

    dwd: the XEP is started…just needs to get submitted

  97. Kev

    linuxwolf: Ok, I was trying to solve the same problems (I think) that you're trying to solve with carbons et al (It was carbons I wanted to update, not Mine, my bad).

  98. dwd

    remko, "It'll compress well"™

  99. linuxwolf

    Kev: no worries…let's you and I talk more about that

  100. Kev

    Sounds like a plan.

  101. linuxwolf

    I think I'll be taking authorship of a couple of these

  102. linuxwolf

    resource locking best practices, carbons, mine-ing

  103. Kev

    And we'll wait to see the third vcard XEP proposal :)

  104. stpeter


  105. stpeter

    got stuck in a massive traffic jam

  106. linuxwolf

    Kev: heh…at least #3 will actually use a vCard spec

  107. Fritzy

    stpeter: shitty

  108. Kev

    stpeter: I'm about to, which is why I'm keen to keep Council short.

  109. stpeter


  110. linuxwolf

    if we're counting infobits as #2

  111. MattJ

    stpeter, should have walked like I did :)

  112. Kev

    At least dwd is driving this time.

  113. dwd

    stpeter, You need to use better congestion control.

  114. Kev

    Right, so, that's probably us doneish on that.

  115. ralphm

    linuxwolf: aaaarghhh

  116. stpeter forgot his phone at home, otherwise would've contacted linuxwolf

  117. linuxwolf

    or a better routing algorithm (-

  118. Kev

    Next item: Next meeting.

  119. Kev

    We're halfway through December, I suggest we skip meeting until the new year.

  120. stpeter looks at the calendar

  121. linuxwolf


  122. stpeter


  123. Fritzy

    22nd shouldn't be a big deal though?

  124. Kev

    5th Jan sounds good to me.

  125. MattJ

    That would give me a chance to get some XEPs submitted :)

  126. linuxwolf

    I'm <presence type='unavailable'/> until 01/03 anyway

  127. Fritzy


  128. stpeter

    I might be able to get some protoXEPs and edits done before the next meeting

  129. linuxwolf

    what stpeter said (-:

  130. dwd

    linuxwolf, That's not an RFC 3339 compliant date format, naughty.

  131. Kev

    MattJ: I intend to submit the 136bis related stuff once you're ready to submit 136bis.

  132. stpeter

    (protoxep for muc error elements)

  133. ralphm

    For the record: no -1 on publishing remote-auth

  134. Fritzy

    +1 for Jan 5th

  135. linuxwolf

    dwd: 20110103T08:00:00-07:00

  136. stpeter adds January 5 to the calendar

  137. remko

    linuxwolf: thanks. Now us europeans can understand what you mean

  138. Fritzy

    ralphm: would be interested in reading your critique

  139. Kev

    linuxwolf: I think that's an hour off.

  140. MattJ

    Kev, excellent

  141. ralphm

    Fritzy: 'no -1'

  142. Fritzy

    oh right

  143. Fritzy

    lack of veto

  144. Fritzy


  145. Kev

    9am for -7, isn't it?

  146. Kev

    1600 Real Time.

  147. ralphm

    Kev: did you catch that for the tally?

  148. stpeter

    it's 9 AM in Denver, 8 AM for Fritzy

  149. linuxwolf

    Kev: noting when I can be expected back online, not the next meeting (-:

  150. Fritzy


  151. Kev

    ralphm: I did, ta.

  152. Kev

    linuxwolf: sneaky.

  153. linuxwolf


  154. linuxwolf

    it's sinister…just like my handedness

  155. Kev

    Ok, so, next meeting 5th Jan 1600GMT.

  156. Kev

    Any other Business?

  157. linuxwolf

    oh, FOSDEM

  158. dwd

    linuxwolf, Latin gags. I imagine your and PSA's classics-related humour has them rolling on the floor in Cisco.

  159. linuxwolf

    who from this council is thinking of attending

  160. linuxwolf


  161. MattJ


  162. dwd

    Kev will be.

  163. Kev

    linuxwolf: I'm assuming I will be.

  164. linuxwolf


  165. dwd

    Kev, You are attending.

  166. stpeter


  167. Kev

    Jolly good.

  168. Fritzy

    Wish I could make it this year, but since I'll be in Italy shortly after, it isn't in the budget.

  169. remko

    dwd: you?

  170. linuxwolf

    dwd: "Good to be the King" (-:

  171. dwd

    Kev, I forgot to mention.

  172. stpeter

    and we know how much Kev loves Brussels

  173. dwd

    remko, I am, too. \o/

  174. MattJ


  175. stpeter

    but at least he has a few good memories of the place :)

  176. ralphm

    I'm attending of course

  177. Kev

    About || this much.

  178. remko

    dwd: \o/

  179. Fritzy

    they have good beer

  180. linuxwolf

    I need to find business justification before I can commit to being at FOSDEM

  181. Kev

    And I caught this awful 'having a wife' illness there, too.

  182. Kev

    But yes.

  183. ralphm

    linuxwolf: does "meeting ralphm" count?

  184. Kev

    linuxwolf: I'll be there :)

  185. linuxwolf


  186. Kev

    Job done.

  187. linuxwolf

    if we have an "official council meeting", that can help (-:

  188. Fritzy

    aw man

  189. ralphm

    linuxwolf: done deal

  190. stpeter

    linuxwolf: we can find some customers for you to meet with :)

  191. dwd

    linuxwolf, Kurt wants to discuss digsig in XMPP, which is relevant.

  192. linuxwolf

    I'm working on my list…but every little thing helps

  193. Kev

    I expect there to be some informal interop, but I'm not sure if it'll be formal.

  194. linuxwolf

    stpeter: the good thing about Cisco is, it's global, so I can always find someone I need to talk with

  195. Kev


  196. Fritzy

    we did Jingle interop the year before last

  197. ralphm

    linuxwolf: is being-council-member considered part of your job?

  198. linuxwolf

    ralphm: I believe it is, yes (-:

  199. ralphm

    ralphm: well, there you go

  200. linuxwolf


  201. Kev

    Or here you come, or something.

  202. Kev


  203. Kev

    Any other any other business?

  204. linuxwolf

    I'm done...really!

  205. Fritzy

    no sir

  206. ralphm

    5 min. to spare. nice

  207. Kev

    There are advantages to having a Chair with the attention span of a

  208. Kev

    oooh, butterflies.

  209. Kev


  210. linuxwolf


  211. Kev

    I'll write up some meetings of the minute tomorrow morning.

  212. linuxwolf


  213. Kev

    Thanks all

  214. Kev gavels the bang.

  215. linuxwolf

    Kev: and I'll begin the out-of-band discussion shortly

  216. MattJ


  217. linuxwolf


  218. Kev

    linuxwolf: Thanks. I like multiple-clients, but don't have an implementation yet, so it's not too late to change my mind :)

  219. Kev

    Anyway, there is a road to be hit.

  220. Kev

    gn all.

  221. stpeter


  222. linuxwolf


  223. ralphm

    Kev: I want it in my n900

  224. stpeter checks the logs to see what he missed