XMPP Council - 2011-03-02


  1. Kev

    So, we have nothing to discuss, but we still have a meeting scheduled.

  2. Kev

    I think a quick discussion of RTT would be sensible, though.

  3. Kev waits for 7minutes.

  4. linuxwolf

    I take it we only have an "unofficial" topic today? (-:

  5. Kev

    Oh, two, actually.

  6. linuxwolf

    !agenda

  7. Kev

    Oh, maybe I should write a bot to do that.

  8. Kev

    That'd be good.

  9. Kev makes a note.

  10. linuxwolf

    at one point, chatbot could do that

  11. linuxwolf

    or some variation of it

  12. Kev

    Well, I'm working (very slowly) on a new bot, so I'll add that to it when it's ready.

  13. linuxwolf

    heh

  14. linuxwolf

    I'm working very slowly on a new voting bot

  15. Kev

    Oh, wonderful.

  16. linuxwolf

    but it's built with EVIL CLOSED SOURCE EMPIRE SOFTWARE right now

  17. Kev

    Heh.

  18. Kev

    Language?

  19. linuxwolf

    er, was…I'll have to see if that repo survived some migrations

  20. Kev

    You're welcome to throw it up on top of Swiftob if it's something C++ish.

  21. linuxwolf

    it started Java, then moved to JavaScript…now, we'll see

  22. linuxwolf

    well, I need to get it through Legal first (-:

  23. Kev

    Well, javascript is almost Lua, and I'll be putting Lua support in shortly.

  24. Kev

    Ah, I hadn't understood that the code itself was evil and closed-source as well as what it was using :)

  25. linuxwolf

    the "joys" of working for a multi-national

  26. linuxwolf

    yeah, unfortunately

  27. linuxwolf

    the closed-source part might change…you know, eventually…maybe

  28. linuxwolf

    /sigh

  29. Kev

    Everyone has been poked.

  30. Kev

    6 billion people took a while, but it's been done.

  31. linuxwolf

    raflmao

  32. Kev

    There we go, right room this week :)

  33. Kev

    No response from Ralph to the ping, but we have quorum.

  34. Kev

    Autobots transform and roll out!

  35. MattJ

    What's on the agenda?

  36. Kev

    MattJ: I'm making it up as we go along, sorry.

  37. linuxwolf

    RTT

  38. MattJ

    k

  39. Kev

    1) Roll call

  40. linuxwolf

    presente

  41. Fritzy

    here

  42. Kev

    I like the idea of people replying to Roll calls, so I at least have an idea they're listening at the start :)

  43. Kev

    I used to always just list who was here, and then spend the meeting wondering if they were at their PCs :)

  44. MattJ

    I'm here, I think

  45. Kev

    Marverful.

  46. Kev

    2) Agenda bashing.

  47. Kev

    So, yeah, until 30mins ago I didn't think we had much agenda, but now I think we do.

  48. Fritzy

    oh, ok

  49. Kev

    So I'm making it up as we go along, it basically goes "RTT" and then "XEP-Correct"

  50. linuxwolf

    hehehe

  51. Kev

    Anyone else have things we need to talk about?

  52. Fritzy

    I just finished catching up on that thread.

  53. Kev

    I'll take that as a no :)

  54. Fritzy

    Kev: nothing here

  55. Kev

    So...

  56. Kev

    3) RTT

  57. Kev

    That thread seems to be making progress to address my concerns.

  58. Fritzy

    Sounds like he's going to do a revised spec.

  59. MattJ

    Indeed

  60. Kev

    They've persuaded me that all the gumph around delay transmission and stuff is useful to a subset of users.

  61. linuxwolf

    yes

  62. Fritzy

    and you pretty much summed up all of the concerns that I had (plus some). I still need to poke the thread a bit now that I've caught up.

  63. Kev

    And I think they've agreed to tidy up the spec, split it into Stuff You Must Have, and The Complicated Stuff.

  64. linuxwolf

    I do find it somewhat funny we're introducing a spec that benefits a protected class of individuals but could be a detriment to everyone else (-:

  65. Fritzy

    yeah, but there still isn't a super-easy base.

  66. Kev

    Fritzy: There is, I think.

  67. MattJ

    Personally I hate the idea of transmitting text as I type

  68. Kev

    If they agree to do replace-only as the base.

  69. linuxwolf

    we'll have to see what the next rev is like

  70. Kev

    Right, I dislike using this feature, but I can see the merit in clients supporting it in case you ever talk to a deaf person or whatever.

  71. MattJ

    but it seems plenty of people want it, and I'd rather we spec it through the XSF than leave them to cook up something themselves

  72. Kev

    I'd turn it on, despite disliking it, if I was talking to someone who'd greatly benefit.

  73. Fritzy

    I'd use it for Frontdesk.im

  74. Fritzy

    if it were simple enough to implement

  75. linuxwolf

    my typing abilities are atrocious enough

  76. linuxwolf

    (-:

  77. Kev

    I think there's merit in what he says, too.

  78. Fritzy

    because I have customers that want it

  79. Kev

    The basic set of operations *are* just basic deterministic string manipulations.

  80. linuxwolf

    I don't know that our customers would allow it in their networks…but we'll see

  81. Kev

    The pain is in writing the parsers and serialisers for it all.

  82. Fritzy

    He's not afraid to send a wall of text back at every point.

  83. Kev

    So, basically, I'd like people to reply on-list please, even if it's just to say that you feel your concerns are/aren't being addressed by the way the conversation's going.

  84. Fritzy

    ok

  85. Kev

    (and if they aren't, why, of course)

  86. Kev

    I'd like it if when they came back with a v2 spec, they'd had all the feedback they need to make it something we could accept.

  87. linuxwolf

    /nod

  88. Kev

    So, onwards

  89. Kev

    4) Xep-correct.

  90. Kev

    I wrote up http://doomsong.co.uk/extensions/render/xep-correct.html (could you have a quick read please, it's very short)...

  91. Fritzy

    reading..

  92. Fritzy

    (saw you mentioned it in the thread)

  93. linuxwolf

    I think I've seen this before...

  94. Kev

    some time ago, and didn't get around to filling in the blanks. Various people keep prodding me because they want it published. Is the approach acceptable to Council, and if so what's the minimum I need to do to the spec to get it past a pseudo-vote to experimental?

  95. Kev

    Hi Ralph.

  96. ralphm

    hi

  97. MattJ

    "Standard stuff. To come later."

  98. MattJ

    I mean, the approach is clearly ok

  99. linuxwolf

    Kev: namespace to urn:xmpp:correct:0, and but a schema in place; maybe the boiler plate about using Disco

  100. MattJ

    Just editorial stuff

  101. Fritzy

    you don't address multiple <body /> here.

  102. Fritzy

    which seems like it could pose a problem for multi-language messages

  103. Kev

    Fritzy: This is true. This is easily worded around, though.

  104. MattJ

    Good catch

  105. linuxwolf

    I wouldn't have held it up for the l10n problems

  106. Kev

    "Only do the replacement on the body with the same xml:lang as the one you've received"

  107. MattJ

    Just choose the body with the same xml:lang as the <replace>

  108. linuxwolf

    not to get to experimental

  109. Fritzy

    yeah, I think filling in the blanks is enough for experimental

  110. linuxwolf

    for features, just pick some not-insane values for now, and let's push it!

  111. Kev

    Ok, so, summary of what I need to do is 1) Add the Disco/caps examples 2) change namespace (although I think this act technically happens at the moment it become Experimental) 3) add Schema.

  112. linuxwolf

    +1

  113. MattJ

    +1

  114. Fritzy

    +1

  115. MattJ

    Though the multiple body issue is probably just a couple of sentences, so if you can... :)

  116. linuxwolf

    I have a BCP for resource locking I need to get cleaned up and submitted

  117. Kev

    I'll see how my 'free time' looks, and see if I can get it to Peter and through to the inbox in time for next week.

  118. ralphm

    +1

  119. Fritzy

    beyond experimental, you might separate the client-uses out of the protocol language in a separate section

  120. stpeter

    um I thought we weren't having a meeting today

  121. linuxwolf

    yeah, use cases versus implementation notes…but we can work through that on the lists

  122. Fritzy

    stpeter: I thought so too, but apparently minds were changed

  123. Kev

    stpeter: I don't think anyone proposed skipping it.

  124. stpeter

    aha

  125. Fritzy

    yeah, not directly

  126. linuxwolf

    we never said we *weren't*

  127. linuxwolf

    (-:

  128. Kev

    linuxwolf: We didn't say we weren't, and last Thursday we said we were, so ... ;)

  129. linuxwolf

    exacetally

  130. Kev

    Sure, though, I can see me sending a mail asking for agenda items could be interpreted as a meeting cancellation.

  131. Kev

    Probably an American vs. English thing.

  132. Kev

    :D

  133. stpeter reminds Fritzy that he needs to vote on XEP-0198 version 1.2

  134. linuxwolf

    <replace id='blah' xmlns='urn:xmpp:correct:0'>exactly</replace>

  135. ralphm

    I also assumed there wouln't be a meeting.

  136. Fritzy

    stpeter: I went to bed early/sick -- is it not too late?

  137. Kev

    I should have sent out an agenda etc. Until this afternoon, I thought we had no items and was going to propose cancelling, and by the time we were T-60minutes I didn't see the point in sending one out when we could discuss here.

  138. Kev

    Anyway.

  139. Kev

    5) Any other business.

  140. Kev

    Anyone?

  141. MattJ

    NOP

  142. linuxwolf

    not this week

  143. Kev

    To keep everyone informed, Bear's halfway through doing the GSoC application.

  144. linuxwolf

    hopefully in time for next

  145. Fritzy

    till next week

  146. linuxwolf

    coolio

  147. stpeter

    Fritzy: not too late, no

  148. MattJ

    We're having a harder time getting GSoC ideas together for Prosody than we had last year

  149. stpeter

    it seems that I missed the RTT discussion :(

  150. Kev

    stpeter: Oh, panic ye not, it's still ongoing :)

  151. MattJ

    Since last year nearly all the GSoC ideas have been started by us or community members :)

  152. Kev

    MattJ: New archiving? :)

  153. Fritzy

    stpeter: to summarize -- make sure they have enough info to make their second proposal acceptable

  154. MattJ

    That's hardly a whole GSoC project

  155. MattJ

    sadly

  156. Kev

    If anyone can persuade people to please submit ideas for various projects, please please do. It looks lonely with just BC and Swift up.

  157. linuxwolf

    MattJ: vcard-temp to vcard4 converter? (-:

  158. Kev

    I've poked assorted projects, Bear tells me he's been poking assorted projects too.

  159. MattJ

    ick

  160. stpeter

    as to RTT, it is important for a subset of users, and we really don't want folks to use RFC 4103 because there's no XMPP solution :)

  161. linuxwolf

    MattJ: vcard is like broccoli; not many people like it, but you have to have it

  162. stpeter

    I love broccoli!

  163. Kev

    stpeter: I think the discussion onlist is progressing productively. The intention is to clean up the spec and resubmit.

  164. linuxwolf

    stpeter: fine, then jelly beans for you!

  165. Kev

    6) Date of next meeting.

  166. Kev

    Next Wednesday?

  167. MattJ

    linuxwolf, I love broccoli, I don't love vcard4 :)

  168. MattJ

    Next Wednesday seems ok for me

  169. Fritzy

    +1 next wed

  170. stpeter

    Kev: super

  171. linuxwolf

    MattJ: vcard is like <insert undesirable but healthy food item here>; you don't like it, but have to have it

  172. Fritzy

    I'll likely miss the one after that as I'll be traveling to ITaly

  173. stpeter

    Kev: I've been reading Internet-Drafts, but will dive into RTT later today

  174. linuxwolf

    +1 for wed

  175. MattJ

    linuxwolf, I don't like sprouts, and I do fine without them

  176. stpeter

    I'm happy to see the RTT folks engaging on the list

  177. Kev

    Very nice, I ate lots of pizza in Italy a few weeks ago :)

  178. linuxwolf

    heh

  179. Kev

    Ok, so I think we're on for Wed then.

  180. Fritzy

    we'll have to talk outside of the meeting then

  181. stpeter

    so xep-correct is to be published?

  182. stpeter

    seems to be unanimous

  183. Fritzy

    not yet

  184. MattJ

    Kev is to clean up and submit it

  185. Kev

    stpeter: No, XEP-Correct is to have a few fixes so it's suitable for submission, then Council have agreed to publish it :)

  186. MattJ

    and we've pre-approved it :)

  187. Fritzy

    no no

  188. Kev

    Apart from me, I've not approved it yet :D

  189. stpeter

    and I saw no objections to vcard4 xep (vcard4 is another matter!) so I assume that is to be published

  190. stpeter

    ok

  191. stpeter

    Kev: :P

  192. Fritzy

    we've suggested that Kev should

  193. stpeter

    ok

  194. linuxwolf is feeling like a dirty loan servicer (-:

  195. Kev

    stpeter: Voting period on vcard4 is over, so that's approved, yes.

  196. Fritzy

    linuxwolf: dude, the inner circle has an agenda, man.

  197. Kev

    s/Voting/Thing that looks like voting, but isn't/

  198. MattJ

    vcard4 is to be published, but I'm unconvinced of it seeing adoption and going beyond that unless it changes, but we'll see

  199. Kev

    Ok, I think we're done, then.

  200. stpeter

    I'm giving Fritzy a grace period on 198 in case he finds anything bad

  201. Kev

    stpeter: Very generous :)

  202. Fritzy

    looking for bad right now

  203. stpeter

    but I'll push it out by end of day if we don't hear from him

  204. linuxwolf

    MattJ: please post your concerns to the lst

  205. stpeter

    Fritzy: many thanks

  206. Kev

    Ok, thanks all :)

  207. linuxwolf

    *list

  208. stpeter

    yep thanks

  209. Kev gangs the bavel.

  210. stpeter goes back to IESG telechat preparation

  211. MattJ

    linuxwolf, I discussed it a bit with waqas and he posted for the both of us :)

  212. linuxwolf

    adios, off to next meetage

  213. Kev adds minute-writing to his TODO

  214. stpeter

    heh

  215. stpeter

    thanks

  216. stpeter

    Kev: regarding message correction, I'll ping Florian because he was working on a proto-proto-xep about this once upon a time

  217. Kev

    Which of the assorted Florians? :)

  218. stpeter

    Florian Jensen

  219. Kev

    I did send this one out to standards@ some 6 months ago, so I imagine he's aware of it, but thanks :)

  220. stpeter

    ah

  221. stpeter

    well I poked him via IM

  222. Fritzy

    stpeter: section 5 "In addition, this allows entities to establish definitively which stanzas require resending and which do not, eliminating replay issues."

  223. stpeter

    I must've missed it 6 months ago

  224. Fritzy

    that seems a bit more definitive than it probably means to be

  225. Fritzy

    I mean, if an ack is only sent every so often, it doesn't prevent all replay

  226. stpeter

    well, you know which stanzas haven't been acked and therefore might need to be resent

  227. stpeter

    I think that text came from Dave Cridland's patch, so I'll blame him :)

  228. Fritzy

    haha

  229. stpeter

    I think this would be better: In addition, this enables entities to establish which stanzas might need to be resent.

  230. Fritzy

    I think that is less amiguous.

  231. Fritzy

    *ambiguous

  232. Fritzy

    I need XEP-correct

  233. stpeter

    :)

  234. MattJ

    I think the point he's trying to make is that without this, there's the chance of message duplication ("replay")

  235. stpeter

    right

  236. stpeter

    the word "replay" brings to mind replay attacks

  237. MattJ

    which is what convinced me in the end that XEP-0198 cannot, and should not, be split

  238. MattJ

    despite my original desires :)

  239. stpeter

    heh

  240. Fritzy

    stpeter: sent my vote

  241. stpeter

    how about this? In addition, this enables entities to establish which stanzas might need to be resent, thus reducing the likelihood that an entity will send or receive duplicate messages.

  242. stpeter

    s/messages/stanzas/

  243. MattJ

    Does it reduce the likelihood, or eliminate the possibility?

  244. stpeter

    well

  245. Kev

    Fritzy: 198 is draft, so this is in fact a real vote (i.e. your +1 is a +1, not a veto) :)

  246. MattJ

    I thought the latter, but I may be wrong

  247. stpeter

    to Fritzy's point, it might depend on how you use it

  248. stpeter

    eliminate is a strong word :)

  249. Kev

    (not a not a veto - I need XEP-correct)

  250. stpeter

    it's probably not good to overpromise

  251. Fritzy

    Kev: alright. :)

  252. Fritzy

    Kev: ah right,

  253. Fritzy

    MattJ: it depends on how it is used

  254. stpeter

    http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ updated

  255. ralphm

    stpeter: cool. I also noticed that the bios on the Council page are outdated

  256. stpeter

    ralphm: we can give you editing privileges :)

  257. stpeter

    or send updates to the council@ list