- mlundblad has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
- Kev has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Kooda has left
- Kooda has joined
- Tobias has joined
- stpeter has joined
- linuxwolf has joined
-
linuxwolf
quick caffeine run, brb
-
Kev
You've got 16 minutes. Go go go.
-
stpeter
howdy
- stpeter replies to Kev's message
-
Kev
Evening.
-
Kev
What was my message?
-
Kev
I've got another agenda item I'm adding now.
-
linuxwolf
oh noes
-
stpeter
your email message about agenda
-
stpeter
sorry, on a conference call at the moment, but multitasking as best as I can :)
-
Kev
Asking Council to review a version published 12 minutes in advance of the meeting seems excessive :p
- Fritzy has joined
-
stpeter
heh
-
stpeter
you mean 0047?
-
Kev
Yeah.
-
stpeter
it was discussed on the list, and I assume that Council members are paying attention to the list :P
-
stpeter
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0047/diff/1.3rc2/vs/1.3rc3
-
stpeter
I think Council members can read one sentence in 10 minutes
-
stpeter
but hey XEP-0047 has been sitting around for almost a year, what's another week?
-
Kev
I've reviewed the change :p
-
linuxwolf
ditto
-
linuxwolf
found a typo or two
- linuxwolf somewhat patiently waits for gavel
-
Kev
As Florian just posted this: http://florianjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/meetings.jpg
-
Fritzy
hurray
-
stpeter
:)
-
Kev
Both Ralph and Matt poked.
-
stpeter
k
- MattJ has joined
-
stpeter
yay
-
MattJ
Heh, I was waiting in council@c.j.o :)
-
stpeter
heh
-
linuxwolf
heh…newb (-:
- ralphm has joined
-
MattJ
I'm in the habit of "/join council" which uses the current server - I guess I was in the wrong room when I typed it
- linuxwolf made that mistake a few weeks ago
-
Kev
4pm!
-
Kev
And a full Council, the fates are smiling upon us.
-
ralphm
1700
-
MattJ
:)
-
linuxwolf
or it's the Apocalypse
-
Kev
1) Roll call.
-
Kev
All here!
-
linuxwolf
either would be fine
-
ralphm
yay
-
Kev
2) Agenda bashing.
-
Kev
(Beyond the extensive on-list bashing)
-
ralphm
I'm gone in 15 min.
-
stpeter
k
-
stpeter
no bashing here
-
Fritzy
plenty on list. :)
-
Kev
A shame this'll be the longest Council for a while :)
-
Kev
3) XEP-0047 1.3rc3. http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0047/diff/1.2/vs/1.3rc3 Accept new version?
-
MattJ
+1
-
linuxwolf
found at least one typo, +1 otherwise
-
linuxwolf
"Upon receiving an error related to delivery of a or stanza, the sender"
-
ralphm
+1
-
stpeter
note that I added a sentence the other day but didn't check in the file -- it was discussed on list, however
-
stpeter
linuxwolf: noted
-
Kev
I had a couple of comments about this. As an aside, SHOULD wait for a reply to the iq seems wrong (unrelated to the diff). Is 'wait' the right error? I didn't check bis. And suggesting we continue sending iqs when we start receiving errors sounds wrong.
-
Kev
+1 though.
-
Fritzy
+1 myself, although maybe an example of a wait error would be nice.
-
Kev
4) XEP-0184, version 1.2rc: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.2.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0184/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2 Accept new version? See http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-February/024133.html http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-February/024160.html
-
Kev
I'm +1 on this. Now that it's been clarified that these aren't read receipts, I'm happy if the bit about not sending replies is modified to say that a client doesn't need the user's configuration to return a receipt to a contact that has a presence sub. I believe that was added at my behest.
-
stpeter
Kev: it was added at your behest, as I recall
-
linuxwolf
+1 also
-
Fritzy
+1, but what about messages from archives. Are we watching for delay?
-
ralphm
+1
- Dave Cridland has joined
-
stpeter
Fritzy: I think we have some text about that now, don't we?
- stpeter checks
-
Kev
Fritzy: It explicitly says not to send from archive.
-
Fritzy
No, I see that.
-
Fritzy
I meant, it doesn't specify how you know that (yes, I realize that is in another spec)
-
stpeter
ah
-
Kev
I don't think it needs to.
-
Kev
Does it?
-
Kev
Well, it's a simple tweak to say "As in e.g. ..."
- stpeter is off his conference call so can concentrate more fully now
-
Kev
stpeter: Are you happy to make the tweak?
-
Fritzy
right, I think it could be a simple reference
-
linuxwolf
well, it does mention XEP-0136...
-
Kev
linuxwolf: Ah, it does?
-
Kev
I reviewed it earlier, forgotten it all now.
-
Kev
In that case, I think we're set.
-
linuxwolf
"An entity MUST NOT send an ack message when a user views messages that have been archived or stored on the client or the server (e.g., viaMessage Archiving <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0136.html> [8 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.2.html#nt-id36424>]), only when first receiving the message."
-
stpeter
we added: 5.5 Archived Messages An entity MUST NOT send an ack message when a user views messages that have been archived or stored on the client or the server (e.g., via Message Archiving [8]), only when first receiving the message.
-
Kev
I think we're set then.
-
Kev
Fritzy?
-
Fritzy
oh, why didn't I see that?!
-
Fritzy
ok
-
linuxwolf
not sure what more can be said
-
Fritzy
(must have been looking at the wrong version or something)
-
MattJ
OT, but I like "[...] this protocol does not enable the sender to know that the intended recipient has read the message or understood the message (if the intended recipient is a human being)" :)
-
Kev
I don't see a MattJ: note.
-
MattJ
I'm +1
-
Kev
note? vote.
-
Kev
Ta.
-
Fritzy
still +1
-
Kev
5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/realtimetext.html Accept as XEP?
-
Fritzy
-1
-
linuxwolf
ugh
-
linuxwolf
-0
-
MattJ
It struck me that *this* spec would have more interesting interaction with archiving :)
-
Kev
I'm usually +1 on Experimental stuff, and seeing what happens, but this feels so completely non-XMPPish, I'm -1.
-
linuxwolf
just because there's precedence, doesn't mean it's GOOD precedence
-
MattJ
Instant realtime replay of conversations!
-
Kev
I've actually implemented this before, for someone who needed it, using a far far simpler model.
- Hirotaka Sato has joined
-
MattJ
Kev, how exactly?
-
MattJ
(and... should we spec it?)
-
linuxwolf
Kev: ditto
-
Fritzy
probably
-
MattJ
This comes up every so often
-
Kev
MattJ: <fragment>I'm half-way through typ</fragment>
-
ralphm
So even if most of us think it is a bad idea, do we really want to discourage specs being made for the use case?
-
Kev
ralphm: No, I think we want to discourage specs that don't seem right.
-
Fritzy
the use case is fine
-
Kev
I'm not -1 because I don't care about the feature.
-
MattJ
If we reject this then we need some clear feedback for the author on why
-
Kev
This is 11,600 words (excluding boilerplate) if my copy/paste/wc skills are ok.
-
Kev
MattJ: I'd like a thread on this on standards@
-
Kev
I'm happy to revote after seeing some community feedback.
-
Kev
I'll weight in on such a discussion (I'm happy to start it)
-
stpeter
+1 to a discussion thread on standards@
-
ralphm
nod
-
linuxwolf
I'll be sure to provide my $0.02USD
-
Kev
I think this is the requirement we currently have set for Council. You can -1, but must post to standards@ with a justification.
- stpeter finds two AOB items
-
ralphm
:-)
-
Fritzy
Sure, I'll -1 and post
-
MattJ
Ok, then I'm +1 to the -1 if we discuss it
-
Kev
MattJ: You mean you're +0?
-
Dave Cridland
I
-
Kev
Or you're -1?
-
Dave Cridland
d
-
Dave Cridland
o
-
Dave Cridland
n
-
Dave Cridland
'
-
Dave Cridland
t
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: Stop.
-
linuxwolf
Kev: I was −0 (-:
-
Dave Cridland
... much like it either. :-)
-
Fritzy
>_<
-
Kev
linuxwolf: yes, I saw that. It'l ralphm's and MattJ's I missed :)
-
MattJ
Kev, put me as +0
-
stpeter
ralphm: the AOB that applies to you is that we need votes from all Council members on http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0198/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2
- coolidge25789 has joined
-
Kev
stpeter: That's not AOB, that's last week's meeting :)
-
ralphm
I don't think it is a required to have everyone's +1,-1,0 for moving to experimental
-
stpeter
Kev: it's other business as far as this meeting is concerned :)
-
Kev
ralphm: do you have a stance on rtt before we move on?
-
Kev
No, you can fail to express an opinion, but I want to know if you have one.
-
ralphm
Kev: I agree with the list action
-
Kev
Ok.
-
ralphm
so that appears to be -1 then
-
Kev
:)
-
Kev
6) http://dave.cridland.net/xeps/google-queue.html This is documentation of a Google protocol. What track should it be? None seem to fit - author doesn't think it's suitable for standards track (should use stream features), Historical is only for pre-XSF documents, and Informational is for BCP. Should the XEP types be tweaked?
-
stpeter
shouldn't it be up to Google folks to document Google extensions?
-
linuxwolf
that's what I was about to ask....
-
Kev
So, Dave poked me about this pre-Council, and I said it should be standards track.
-
Fritzy
Do they care to?
-
stpeter
(however, note that I wrote the documentation for linklocal...)
-
stpeter
(and that was an Apple protocol)
-
Fritzy
We'll make a new track called "Google"
-
stpeter
haha
-
linuxwolf
grr
-
MattJ
:D
-
Kev
I don't see that we gain sufficient interoperability to make this worth documenting but not ST.
-
MattJ
I think standards track is fine
- coolidge25789 has left
-
ralphm
I think this was discussed with some Google people
-
linuxwolf
yeah, but if it's our standard, some things will need to change
-
stpeter
Jonas is on the author list
-
ralphm
stpeter: right
-
Kev
Dave Cridland can express his opinion on it being ST, but I understand he doesn't think this is the right way to do it.
-
ralphm
so it's ours and theirs
-
stpeter
but yeah we'd at least change the namespace to urn:xmpp:*
-
Kev
I think we should ST it, and do whatever the community thinks is the right thing to do.
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, But that makes it a different protocol.
-
Kev
As it does seem simple and useful.
-
Fritzy
Do we need this simplification when we have other solutions?
-
stpeter
indeed it does
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, THe point of documenting it is to say "this exists", nothign more.
-
stpeter
I think we need to take this to the standards@ list
-
Kev
Fritzy: from my limited understanding, this is actually simple and useful.
-
stpeter
Dave Cridland: in that case, Informational is right
-
Fritzy
Dave Cridland: then it's informational
-
Kev
stpeter: No, because it's not a BCP.
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, Informational is described as "typically" for BCP, so there is wiggle-room.
-
Kev
Thus the question about whether we should update the XEP-0001 descriptions.
-
linuxwolf
we've used informational for other "not-quite-standard" protocols in the past
-
ralphm
I would say it is historical, but hey
-
Kev
ralphm: Historical means it was written before the JSF existed :)
-
linuxwolf
I would be good with Informational, FWIW
-
Dave Cridland
I originally thought Historical, hence its designation.
-
Dave Cridland
But Informational suits me fine.
-
stpeter
those categories need to be clarified
-
stpeter
now that the XSF has been around for almost 10 years
-
linuxwolf
or reambiguated (-:
-
MattJ
Good point :)
-
Kev
If we do put this as Informational, I think we should also create an ST version, and obsolete this one.
-
Fritzy
hmm..
-
MattJ
FWIW Telepathy does or is planning to implement this
-
linuxwolf
how about we see what the list discussion is first
-
MattJ
I think
-
Kev
Publishing it as Informational means we think it's important enough to be worth publishing. If we don't believe it's the right solution, we should document the right solution.
-
Fritzy
I think this requires some more thought
-
Dave Cridland
Kev, I'm fine with that (and this was my original plan), but the original is deployed in at least one large implementation.
-
stpeter
I think informational documentation of protocols out there in the wild can be helpful
-
ralphm
so, what is the value of redoing it in a new namespace?
-
Dave Cridland
MattJ, Does implement as specified here.
-
ralphm
I don't think I want more/less features
-
MattJ
ralphm, that we can advance the protocol
-
Kev
ralphm: We wouldn't for Informational.
-
Kev
But for ST we need to.
-
stpeter
ralphm: aside from the fact that "google:" is not a legitimate identifier on any planet I know about?
-
MattJ
Heh
-
ralphm
that seems bureaucratic
-
Kev
Good point, it's an illegal namespace :D
-
ralphm
stpeter's argument is sane
-
stpeter
I mean we dropped "jabber:" 8+ years ago?
-
Kev
Anyway.
-
MattJ
Wait, so is jabber:iq:... :)
-
stpeter
it's an illegal namespace, why encourage those?
-
Kev
Anyway.
- linuxwolf has left
-
stpeter
MattJ: legacy
- linuxwolf has joined
-
Kev
Who is volunteering to start a list discussion?
-
stpeter
we were idiots back then, why encourage more idiocy?
-
MattJ
Dave
-
linuxwolf
Dave
-
Kev
Or are we not bothering and going ahead as Informational?
-
ralphm
stpeter: must namespaces be uris?
-
MattJ
I vote Informational
-
MattJ
and keep the existing namespace
-
MattJ
and then ST it if we want to make our own
-
MattJ
but that's for the list
-
Kev
I do want a discussion about whether this is the optimal approach.
-
linuxwolf
/agreed w/ MattJ
-
stpeter
[Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference [RFC3986]; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ]
-
Dave Cridland
Oh, if you guys are happy with Informational, I see no need to bother the list with it. I'll just submit to the XEP Editor as Informational.
-
stpeter
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#concepts
-
Fritzy
I don't think it is /the/ optimal approach, but it is very simple, and that sometimes is all a spec needs to be popular
-
ralphm
stpeter: thanks
-
stpeter
+1 to simplicity
-
Kev
So someone has to agree to start the list discussion to see what the best way of doing it is.
-
Kev
If this is sufficiently different, we should ST it.
-
MattJ
Dave Cridland, the list discussion would be on whether we want to make a standards track version of this
-
Kev
Or, rather, create an ST spec to obsolete the informational.
-
stpeter
MattJ: agreed
-
Dave Cridland
MattJ, I think that'll come naturally from submitting this one.
-
ralphm
I think it would be good to rename the namespace only for this reason
-
Fritzy
yeah, let's see what the community thinks
-
Kev
So who's starting the discussion
-
linuxwolf
Dave
-
Kev
Someone volunteer, I volunteered for rtt :)
-
stpeter
Dave has been volunteered
-
Fritzy
haha
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: Happy?
-
ralphm
i.e. if google would have chosen a valid namespace name, I would excuse them from the namespace changing stuff we regularly do
-
Fritzy
Dave is fine with informational, remember?
-
MattJ
I'd volunteer except I know I'll not get around to it right now
-
Kev
Fritzy: Yes, I'm not happy with Informational without a discussion :)
-
Dave Cridland
There's a political problem with renaming the namespace, of course, which is that given the inertia of Google's implementation, there's little hope of seeing deployment there.
-
ralphm
I'm +1 on accepting this on standards track in that case.
-
Kev
I have no objection to this going on ST.
-
Fritzy
sure, plus a little service discovery and away we go
-
ralphm
Dave Cridland: that's an assumption we should verify
-
Dave Cridland
ralphm, I can ask Jonas, of course.
-
Kev
We're 7 minutes away from meeting-tolerance.
-
ralphm
Dave Cridland: I think it would be good of us to make Google aware that their namespaces are illegally named. You could even suggest they use http://google.com/something
-
ralphm
Dave Cridland: please do
-
ralphm
Kev: next?
-
Kev
What are people's current positions? Mine is that I either want list discussion if we want to Informational it, or to do it ST.
- taylor26215 has joined
- Hirotaka Sato has left
-
stpeter
Kev: same here
-
linuxwolf
ditto
-
Fritzy
+1
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: Are you willing to start the discussion?
-
Dave Cridland
My opinion is that it shouldn't be done this way, or with this namespace, in ST, and the original needs documenting irregardless of whether we persue this as ST.
-
Fritzy
namespace changes can happen during experimental on standards track
-
Kev
I'm happy to publish this Informational and obsoleted by an ST document.
-
Fritzy
hm
-
linuxwolf
Dave: sounds like you can kick off the list discussion… (-:
-
Fritzy
that way we could at least refer to the old version, I suppose
-
Dave Cridland
Righty, I'll do so - shall I formally submit this before or after?
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: Both at the same time would make me happiest.
-
Fritzy
It's all about you, isn't it?
-
Fritzy
;)
-
Kev
Fritzy: About me? Yes.
-
ralphm
I'm +1 on 0198
-
ralphm
gotta go
-
Dave Cridland
Kev, K. I shall submit now, then, and then kick off the discussion once it's announced.
-
Kev
Bye Ralph.
-
stpeter
is this extension already documented on google.com somewhere?
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: You have the ST version ready?
- stpeter needs to transfer the voting tally pages to WordPress
-
Kev
I was saying I didn't want the Informational submitted before the ST one.
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, Erm. I can't actually recall - I know that Jonas wrote an email describing it to jdev@ at one point.
-
MattJ
Kev, why not?
-
Dave Cridland
Kev, Ah, you want an ST one? Well, that's another issue entirely... I can easily enough write out a proposal, of course.
-
Kev
MattJ: Because if we're Informationalising it without an ST equivalent, I think there should be a discussion on standards@ to see what the community thinks.
-
MattJ
about what?
-
Kev
The right way of doing it.
-
linuxwolf
I think we should allow this informational one first, start the list discussion, and see where it goes
-
MattJ
Informationalising it isn't about the right way of doing it
-
MattJ
It's about how Google have it implemented *now*
-
MattJ
which can be used as the basis of an ST document if we decide we want one
-
Kev
I basically feel unhappy about us documenting this non-ST, given that it's basically one deployment.
-
Dave Cridland
MattJ, Right - at least three implementations of this exist now.
-
MattJ
Kev, one significant deployment
-
Dave Cridland
Kev, It's not one implementation. If it were...
-
Kev
MattJ: Yes.
-
Kev
Dave Cridland: Yes, and I think we should see if it's the right way before we encourage more implementations.
-
Kev
By claiming that this is a BCP.
-
MattJ
I don't see we should claim it as a BCP
-
Kev
MattJ: That's what Informational means.
-
MattJ
The current definition of "informational" is another matter
-
linuxwolf
fine, then let's redefine informational
-
linuxwolf
then publish
-
MattJ
We've already decided it's too limited
-
Kev
linuxwolf: I'm fine with that.
-
Kev
Although that's Board, rather than Council :)
-
linuxwolf
it used to have a broader definition anyway
-
MattJ
So fix XEP-0001, publish queue as informational, debate forming an ST doc from it
-
stpeter
Kev: right :)
-
stpeter
but documentation is good
-
Dave Cridland
(FWIW, I'd be more comfortable with Historical in the XEP framework - ie, "this is how it's been done, we don't say this is a good idea".)
-
Kev
So'd I.
-
stpeter
fine by me
-
Kev
Assuming we modify historical to mean "Implemented outside the standards track"
-
linuxwolf
I'm fine with Historical too
-
Kev
+wordsmithing.
-
linuxwolf
do we also want to clarify what the definition of "is" is (-:
-
Dave Cridland
But that means redefining Historical to encompass things developed outside the XSF but after it was instigated.
-
stpeter
"Documentation is like sex. When it's good, it's very good. When it's bad, it's better than nothing." -- Jeremie Miller
-
stpeter
ok my other call is starting
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, Is that Jer's quote? I never knew it was him.
-
Kev
Ok, we've passed tolerance.
-
linuxwolf
oh, +1 on 198
-
stpeter
meeting city this morning!
-
stpeter
linuxwolf: noted
-
stpeter
and ralphm's vote on 198 is noted
-
Kev
I'm happy to vote on this next week as Historical, and someone should ask Board to modify -0001.
-
Kev
7) Date of next meeting
-
Kev
Next Wednesday?
-
linuxwolf
wfm
-
MattJ
+1
-
Kev
Fritzy: ?
-
Fritzy
that's fine.
-
Kev
8) AOB?
-
Fritzy
+1
-
stpeter
I'll update the calendar for next Wed
-
Kev
Ta.
-
Fritzy
Nope.
-
stpeter
some folks need to vote on 198
-
stpeter
and the vcard inbox item
-
Kev
stpeter: We know.
-
Fritzy
yup, I'll do that on list today
-
stpeter
just a reminder :)
- Fritzy plays catchup.
-
Kev
Anything else?
-
stpeter
nope
-
linuxwolf
nay
-
Kev
Ok.
-
Fritzy
nodda
-
MattJ
Just to confirm... my votes for 198 and vcard4 are in, yes? I got no reply
-
Kev
MattJ: I've not seen them on-list. If they're in the buffer, I'll see them when I do the minutes :)
-
stpeter
MattJ: didn't see those
-
MattJ
Hmph
-
stpeter
MattJ: scrolling up
-
MattJ
I'll try from my other account again
-
Kev
Ok.
-
stpeter
MattJ: probably just my fault
-
MattJ
erm, I sent to the list, sorry
-
stpeter
ah ok
-
stpeter
that works
- Kev bangs the gavel
-
Kev
Thanks all.
-
stpeter
thanks
-
Fritzy
ciao
-
linuxwolf
adios
-
MattJ
Thanks
- stpeter turns his attention to the IESG telechat
-
MattJ
Enjoy :)
-
stpeter
oh yeah
- linuxwolf preps for next meeting
-
MattJ
Just can't get enough telechats
-
linuxwolf
hi ho, hi by
-
stpeter
this is a fun one -- the meeting schedule for IETF 80
-
MattJ
Is that Prague?
-
stpeter
yes
-
linuxwolf
Some say that's Kev's favorite city to visit
-
stpeter
haha
-
stpeter
it's a beautiful city
-
MattJ
Kev, ok... I don't see my email in the archives... +1s anyway
-
MattJ
Kev, I also asked where vcard4 puts User Profile
- linuxwolf has left
- Steffen Larsen has joined
- taylor26215 has left
- Steffen Larsen has left
- Dave Cridland has left
- Tobias has left
- ralphm has left
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- ralphm has joined
- julm has joined
- Tobias has joined
- ralphm has left
- stpeter has left
- mlundblad has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Kev has left
- Kev has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Tobias has left
- Kooda has left
- Kooda has joined
- Tobias has joined
- stpeter has joined
- linuxwolf has joined
- Fritzy has joined
- MattJ has joined
- ralphm has joined
- Dave Cridland has joined
- Hirotaka Sato has joined
- coolidge25789 has joined
- coolidge25789 has left
- linuxwolf has left
- linuxwolf has joined
- taylor26215 has joined
- Hirotaka Sato has left
- linuxwolf has left
- Steffen Larsen has joined
- taylor26215 has left
- Steffen Larsen has left
- Dave Cridland has left
- Tobias has left
- ralphm has left
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- ralphm has joined
- julm has joined
- Tobias has joined
- ralphm has left
- stpeter has left