XMPP Council - 2011-04-20

01:56:19 stpeter has joined
03:49:18 bear has left
04:05:01 bear has joined
05:19:31 stpeter has left
10:46:45 Kanchil+ has joined
10:46:46 Kanchil+ Kev: Done.
10:46:51 Kev !agenda
10:46:51 Kanchil+ Kev: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda bashing 3) Retract XEP-0192 4) Retract XEP-0193 5) Last Call on XEP-0262: Use of ZRTP in Jingle RTP Sessions 6) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc3 of XEP-0178: Best Practices for Use 7) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc1 of XEP-0171: Language Translation 8) Council concensus on removing Proposed from XEP-0001 9) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6? 10) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6? 11) Date of next meeting 12) Any other business Fini
10:46:58 Kev Close enough.
12:05:10 Vanaryon has joined
12:43:50 Vanaryon has left
13:29:36 stpeter has joined
13:49:48 Kev wonders how many of the specs he'll have a chance to review before the meeting.
14:15:58 fippo has joined
14:37:24 MattJ has joined
14:39:19 stpeter hi MattJ
14:39:23 MattJ Hi
14:39:30 stpeter I'm going to check 198 into git
14:39:36 stpeter so that you can see the diff
14:39:40 MattJ k
14:39:43 MattJ thanks
14:39:58 MattJ I'm confused about what is version 1.2 :)
14:40:57 stpeter well
14:41:05 stpeter 1.2 was confused in several respects
14:41:15 stpeter but 1.2 is what's published on the website
14:41:30 stpeter I cleaned up all the XEPs to refer to 6120/6121
14:41:37 MattJ Ok, so 1.2rc2 is something else?
14:41:46 stpeter I don't think we want council votes on all those reference updates
14:42:05 MattJ No, we don't :)
14:42:18 Kev I think we should probably have a Council item to say "Switch to 6120/6121 throughout".
14:42:37 Kev No-one's going to object, but they are technically non-trivial changes to the dependencies of the XEPs.
14:42:50 stpeter Kev: well, there *are* exceptions because in some of the specs we legitimately refer to 3920 or 3921
14:43:01 stpeter e.g., to reference Nodeprep or whatever
14:43:07 Kev Righty.
14:43:08 stpeter those references have been retained
14:43:41 stpeter but sure, a vote on that switch seems good
14:44:03 linuxwolf has joined
14:44:08 stpeter maybe we should make suite definitions while we're at it, although it's unclear to me if anyone ever used those
14:46:02 Florob has joined
14:47:10 bene has joined
14:47:20 stpeter early agenda bashing ... I think that XEP-0178 is not quite ready for approval because fippo and I are still working out some fine points in the document on the standards@xmpp.org list
14:47:45 Kev Right, I was going to suggest that.
14:48:06 MattJ Ok, I'll stop reviewing it now then :)
14:48:24 stpeter replies to fippo's latest email before the meeting begins
14:49:26 stpeter I also have a conference call starting in 12 minutes (I'm now the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team, yay!), but I don't know how much attention that will take
14:50:03 linuxwolf sounds like fun
14:50:10 stpeter indeed
14:50:17 Kev linuxwolf: it does? :)
14:50:25 linuxwolf no, it does not (-:
14:50:28 linuxwolf that was sarcasm
14:50:38 stpeter linuxwolf: you'll be happy to hear that I also had a HYBI WG coordination call at 11 last night :)
14:50:50 linuxwolf did it involve AES-CTR?
14:50:53 linuxwolf (-:<
14:50:58 stpeter no!
14:51:09 linuxwolf good
14:51:23 linuxwolf I noticed you actually posted something to the hybi list, too
14:51:42 stpeter just using one of the reserved opcodes to signal if masking is enabled
14:52:10 ralphm has joined
14:52:45 stpeter hi ralph!
14:53:02 linuxwolf /nod … but the oddest things become a hill to die on over there
14:55:26 ralphm has left
14:55:38 ralphm has joined
14:56:50 ralphm hi
14:59:22 MattJ Gah, phone... brb 2 minutes
15:01:09 stpeter fippo: I've replied to you on the list
15:01:25 Kev May as well get started, and let Matt catch up?
15:01:29 Kev Or wait for him?
15:02:08 linuxwolf I can catch up (-:
15:02:19 linuxwolf trolls the vagueness
15:02:28 stpeter :P
15:03:10 Kev So
15:03:14 Kev !agendaup
15:03:14 Kanchil+ Kev: 1) Roll call
15:03:25 linuxwolf presente
15:03:27 ralphm here
15:03:30 Kev MattJ's largely here.
15:03:33 Kev I'm certainly here.
15:03:47 Kev We're missing a Fritzy - I don't remember him saying he'd miss it, I should check I guess.
15:04:10 Kev Will do so before the minutes.
15:04:13 Kev !agendaup
15:04:13 Kanchil+ Kev: 2) Agenda bashing
15:04:20 Kev Anyone?
15:04:22 linuxwolf has left
15:04:26 linuxwolf has joined
15:04:47 stpeter I bashed about 178
15:04:51 Kev You did.
15:04:53 stpeter before the meeting started
15:05:09 Kev Onward, then.
15:05:11 Kev !agendaup
15:05:11 Kanchil+ Kev: 3) Retract XEP-0192
15:05:12 MattJ Sorry, back
15:05:22 stpeter we also talked about the 6120/6121 updates
15:05:32 Kev Point.
15:05:39 Kev !agendaappend 6120/6121 updates.
15:05:39 Kanchil+ Kev: Done.
15:05:43 stpeter thanks
15:05:47 Kev So.
15:05:48 stpeter nothing else here
15:05:52 Kev !agendaup 0
15:05:52 stpeter I might have an AOB or two
15:05:52 Kanchil+ Kev: 3) Retract XEP-0192
15:05:58 Kev +1
15:06:11 MattJ +1
15:06:15 linuxwolf +1
15:06:45 ralphm this is kinda odd
15:06:54 ralphm don't authors retract xeps?
15:07:30 Kev Well, a Draft XEP can't actually be Retracted.
15:07:36 Kev So we're really voting to Deprecate, I think.
15:07:38 ralphm also, I don't think you can go from Draft to Retracted
15:07:49 ralphm in that case +1
15:08:08 Kev So, yes, let's make this a vote to deprecate and revote.
15:08:09 Kev +1
15:08:13 linuxwolf +1
15:08:15 stpeter right, deprecate is correct
15:08:26 stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#approval-std
15:08:35 linuxwolf you beat me to the link
15:08:44 Kev MattJ: Still +1?
15:09:00 MattJ Still +1
15:09:04 emcho has joined
15:09:04 Kev !agendaup
15:09:05 Kanchil+ Kev: 4) Retract XEP-0193
15:09:08 Kev This is Deprecate too.
15:09:12 Kev +1
15:09:16 ralphm +1
15:09:17 linuxwolf +1
15:09:27 MattJ +1
15:09:32 Kev !agendaup
15:09:32 Kanchil+ Kev: 5) Last Call on XEP-0262: Use of ZRTP in Jingle RTP Sessions
15:09:43 Kev I'm largely happy to Last Call anything :)
15:09:48 linuxwolf (-:
15:09:50 ralphm +1
15:09:51 Kev +1
15:09:54 linuxwolf +1
15:10:01 stpeter it will make Phil Zimmerman happy, if nothing else
15:10:10 MattJ +1
15:10:14 Kev !agendaup
15:10:14 Kanchil+ Kev: 6) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc3 of XEP-0178: Best Practices for Use
15:10:19 Kev Skipping this one.
15:10:21 stpeter nod
15:10:24 Kev (Ongoing list discussion)
15:10:26 Kev !agendaup
15:10:26 Kanchil+ Kev: 7) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc1 of XEP-0171: Language Translation
15:10:37 linuxwolf heh
15:10:38 linuxwolf +1
15:10:48 linuxwolf that was such a hard read (-:
15:10:49 stpeter somehow that slipped through the cracks last year
15:10:53 Kev This seems a bit of a strange thing to update. Given it'll break any existing implementations.
15:11:01 stpeter right
15:11:10 stpeter but as discussed on the list, there was agreement to fix it
15:11:18 Kev Oh, I somehow missed that.
15:11:18 linuxwolf right
15:11:28 ralphm doesn't this require a numeral now?
15:11:28 MattJ I guess I missed it too, but +1
15:12:07 stpeter the '#' is now allowed in URNs
15:12:12 stpeter s/now/not/
15:12:18 ralphm I understand
15:12:23 stpeter ralphm: this document was published before we had versioning
15:12:28 ralphm but if it is being changed...
15:12:53 linuxwolf hrm
15:12:59 Kev The thread I can find on the lists is from last June, where Peter says "The authors ...approve of this change" but there was no discussion.
15:13:13 stpeter Kev: because I poked them offlist
15:13:31 stpeter AFAIK there was only ever the one implementation, but I'm happy to bring this back to the list
15:13:41 stpeter with a versioning update to the namespace
15:13:47 Kev I think "discussed on the list" is pushing it when there was only one person posting :p
15:13:56 stpeter discussed among the authors
15:13:57 Kev But if we believe there's only one implementation, I'm happy to change it.
15:14:06 stpeter I can't promise that there's only one impl
15:14:22 ralphm I really just asking whether it should be changed, not requiring it, per se.
15:14:25 stpeter so let's take it to the list
15:14:33 stpeter I'll start a thread about it right now
15:14:40 linuxwolf /nod
15:14:42 Kev I think just asking the list if anyone has implemented, and then voting in a fortnight or so seems safest.
15:14:48 ralphm k
15:14:59 Kev Even if there was only one implementation a year ago when you last posted, there *could* be more by now.
15:15:15 Kev Everyone ok with that?
15:15:18 MattJ Fine
15:15:26 Kev !agendaup
15:15:26 Kanchil+ Kev: 8) Council concensus on removing Proposed from XEP-0001
15:15:28 linuxwolf wfm
15:15:35 ralphm +1
15:15:37 MattJ +1
15:15:42 linuxwolf +1
15:15:47 Kev Council isn't the approving body for XEP-0001, but it's good to be asked anyway :)
15:16:12 ralphm Kev: you +1?
15:16:13 Kev I'm not opposed to removing Proposed, but I note that this needs more thought than scrubbing it, so I'd quite like to know to what we're agreeing.
15:16:34 Kev Specifically, if we remove Proposed, we no longer have a way to Reject a XEP.
15:16:39 ralphm well, it just that we make XEP-0001 more in line with current practice
15:16:45 MattJ This /was/ discussed on the list though :)
15:16:56 Kev MattJ: Was there suggested text, though?
15:17:08 MattJ Not that I recall without looking
15:17:14 Kev I thought it only went as far as vaguely agreeing to get rid of Proposed.
15:17:15 stpeter Kev: sure we do, it comes up for a vote while still in the Experimental state and the Council votes to Reject it
15:17:16 Kev Which I'm fine with.
15:17:36 ralphm I don't see a problem with moving the arrow from experimental to rejected
15:17:42 Kev stpeter: I mean that the only valid state change to Rejected is from Proposed.
15:17:52 Kev I'm entirely happy with allowing Council to Reject at any point in Experimental.
15:17:58 Kev I think this would be preferable, in fact.
15:18:04 ralphm I agree
15:18:13 linuxwolf or we do what happens now, and never vote on the item (-:
15:18:18 stpeter in general, a number of specs have ended up going from Proposed back to Experimental (Council feedback requires an updated version but the authors don't get around to that), and it's unclear when the XEP Editor is supposed to change it back from Proposed to Experimental
15:18:34 Kev Right, the current problem is, as I understand it:
15:18:41 stpeter seems cleaner to just get rid of Proposed
15:18:57 Kev Author asks for vote to Draft on Experimental XEP. Council deem it not ready. As XEP-0001 stands, the XEP is then Rejected with no way to get it back.
15:19:07 ralphm I don't think that the 'proposed' state adds much value
15:19:14 Kev This is a fine problem to solve.
15:19:26 linuxwolf let's dump it!
15:19:55 Kev So if what we're discussing is removing Proposed from the state chart, and making the arrow go from Experimental to Rejected instead, and letting Council do this at any time (with appropriate majority vote), I'm happy with the proposal.
15:20:16 linuxwolf that's what it sounds like to me
15:20:19 ralphm I also note that there is no arrow from deferred back to experimental
15:20:20 Kev Does anyone disagree with that assessment and/or have a different understanding?
15:20:20 stpeter yes, that's the concrete proposal
15:20:32 stpeter ralphm: also something to be fixed, then
15:20:38 MattJ Kev, I don't
15:21:23 Kev ralphm: Not in the diagram, but the text itself documents that this is permitted.
15:21:36 Kev Ok, so we're good to move on then with Council support, excellent.
15:21:40 Kev !agendaup
15:21:40 Kanchil+ Kev: 9) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
15:21:58 ralphm in principle our 'experimental' is really 'proposed'
15:22:08 Kev ralphm: Right.
15:22:12 Kev I'm +1 on this.
15:22:16 linuxwolf +1
15:22:35 ralphm +1
15:22:37 MattJ I'm going to vote on the lis
15:22:38 MattJ t
15:22:46 Kev MattJ: OK.
15:23:01 MattJ I've been following the discussions, but haven't reviewed the latest diff (if it's changed)
15:23:20 ralphm I can't think of any other XEP with so many implementations that is experimental
15:23:52 stpeter posted to the list about 171
15:23:58 MattJ ralphm, heh
15:23:59 ralphm stpeter: thanks!
15:24:21 stpeter always best to be careful :)
15:24:26 linuxwolf hehe
15:24:35 Kev !agendaup
15:24:35 Kanchil+ Kev: 10) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
15:24:39 Kev !agendaup
15:24:39 stpeter ralphm: it really should not have been Experimental when we copied it over from RFC 3920 to XEP-0220
15:24:39 Kanchil+ Kev: 11) 6120/6121 updates.
15:24:47 ralphm stpeter: right
15:24:58 ralphm so, where are we wanting to move it to, really?
15:25:11 Kev So, are we happy with Peter going through all the XEPs and replacing 3920 with 6120 and 3921 with 6121 where he deems appropriate?
15:25:12 Kev +1
15:25:18 ralphm +1
15:25:20 stpeter ralphm: I think we need to move it to Draft before we can do anything else with it
15:25:30 ralphm stpeter: agreed
15:25:39 ralphm stpeter: and then last call it next week?
15:25:42 ralphm :-)
15:25:44 MattJ Kev, +1
15:25:44 linuxwolf heh
15:25:48 linuxwolf +1
15:25:53 Kev !agendaup
15:25:53 Kanchil+ Kev: 12) Date of next meeting
15:26:05 Kev Next Wednesday, usual time? (1500GMT)
15:26:13 linuxwolf wfm
15:26:14 stpeter WFM
15:26:16 ralphm I might not be available
15:26:19 ralphm taking some time off
15:26:26 MattJ +1
15:26:28 stpeter I'll miss any meeting the following week (May 4) if we have one
15:26:31 MattJ (to next week)
15:26:33 ralphm (easter holidays)
15:26:36 Kev ralphm: Happy to vote on-list?
15:26:44 stpeter I'll be flying back from Amsterdam that day
15:27:00 ralphm stpeter: you'll be here?
15:27:11 stpeter ralphm: yes, on May 2-3 for the IESG retreat
15:27:26 Florob has left
15:27:41 ralphm stpeter: oh, nice. Are you only here on those days, or do you have more time?
15:27:47 stpeter oh AOB?
15:27:50 linuxwolf focus people!
15:27:55 ralphm bang already
15:27:58 stpeter hmph
15:28:01 Kev stpeter: I'm waiting for Ralph to confirm he's happy to vote onlist.
15:28:03 stpeter my other meeting was ending
15:28:21 ralphm Kev: oh, I'm probably offline quite a bit
15:28:27 Kev Ideally soon so we can get on with AOB before 30minute tolerance.
15:28:38 stpeter I received a submission that sounds just like the April 1 XEP :) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html
15:28:40 Kev ralphm: I'll take that as a "Yes" :)
15:28:41 ralphm Kev: but I have 2 weeks, so sure
15:28:45 stpeter however, it is legitimate
15:28:47 Kev !agendaup
15:28:47 Kanchil+ Kev: 13) Any other business
15:28:56 stpeter I'll send a notice to the list after I clean it up a bit
15:29:05 stpeter didn't want to announce it right before this meeting
15:29:06 emcho are outsiders allowed to speak?
15:29:11 stpeter it's nostly BOSH-ish
15:29:17 stpeter s/n/m/
15:29:18 Kev emcho: I don't see why not.
15:29:29 emcho concerning the any other business item
15:29:32 emcho last thursday stpeter mentioned on the jingle list that "The XMPP Council will decide at its next meeting whether to accept [Coin] as an official XEP". Peter, is this the meeting you were referring to?
15:29:48 Kev emcho: It wasn't added to the agenda.
15:29:57 Kev emcho: I'll make sure it's on next week's.
15:30:08 emcho Kev: k thanks!
15:30:09 ralphm stpeter: oh wow, that's classic. I'm not quite sure what to think about this JSON-encoded-XMPP-for-the-sake-of-BOSH
15:30:27 linuxwolf /sigh
15:30:48 Kev So, I think there's nothing to do with this protoXEP, it's just a proposal and soon we'll be voting on it, right?
15:31:07 ralphm let's publish it
15:31:15 ralphm +1
15:31:20 ralphm if it comes up for vote
15:31:46 Kev I'm impressed that it seems to take my ugly proposal from the April 1st XEP and make it less legible :D
15:31:53 MattJ Kev, +1 :(
15:32:12 ralphm they can battle!
15:32:16 Kev Anyway.
15:32:19 Kev AOAOB?
15:32:19 linuxwolf ugh
15:32:42 linuxwolf none from me
15:32:51 MattJ None
15:32:51 ralphm nope
15:32:58 Kev Excellent.
15:33:02 Kev Thanks all!
15:33:03 ralphm hooray!
15:33:05 Kev bangs the gavel.
15:33:09 linuxwolf waves
15:33:09 Kev 32 minutes :(
15:33:12 linuxwolf has left
15:33:14 stpeter Kev: check the date on that submission, though
15:33:37 stpeter it predates yours, but there was some IPR wrangling at Nokia
15:33:38 ralphm woah
15:33:40 Kev stpeter: Oh. I wonder why I didn't remember this, then.
15:33:54 stpeter Kev: because I never announced it until now
15:33:58 Kev Excellent.
15:33:59 stpeter this got lost in my inbox
15:34:26 stpeter along with many other old topics
15:34:52 stpeter works to get his inbox back down from 5 to 0 :)
15:35:04 stpeter emcho: sorry about the snafu, we'll get it on next week's agenda
15:35:07 fippo stpeter: +1 @ 0178
15:35:14 stpeter fippo: excellent, thanks
15:35:15 emcho stpeter: no problem at all
15:35:55 MattJ emcho, since discussions are currently happening on the list about Coin, it's probably wise to wait a week anyway
15:36:10 ralphm I am not quite sure about JSON and extensibility in general
15:36:14 emcho MattJ: yes that makes sense
15:36:23 stpeter ralphm: me neither
15:36:26 MattJ ralphm, I'm not sure I'm happy with this XEP :/
15:36:29 ralphm What I am seeing happening at, for example, the activity streams stuff saddens me
15:36:31 stpeter MattJ: true
15:36:36 Kev ralphm: JSON isn't any less extensible than XML, you just need to make it horribly ugly to achieve the same things.
15:36:41 stpeter :)
15:36:48 MattJ It's a non-standard translation from XML to JSON
15:37:01 MattJ Prosody could easily support JSON in BOSH (wait, it does since 1st April...)
15:37:10 Kev :)
15:37:13 ralphm Kev: that's my point. This is how it goes: 1) XML SUCKS! Let's use JSON, because it is *easier*
15:37:19 MattJ But if we were to do it in the style of this XEP, we would use JSON that matches our internal stanza structures
15:37:35 ralphm 2) hmm, we need to change how many values this attribute can have, let's up the version
15:37:48 ralphm 3) hmm, we really need extensibility. Let's add namespaces.
15:37:55 MattJ Otherwise we'd end up doing all kinds of transformations on the server that I'm sure would negate any performance advantages on the client
15:37:56 ralphm 4) WOW. This is HORRIBLE!
15:38:01 ralphm 5) Let's use XML?
15:38:18 Kev Supporting this protoXEP seems to make the server work much harder.
15:38:39 Kev ralphm: I think there are plenty of cases where JSON is a reasonable format, to be fair.
15:38:54 stpeter ralphm: :)
15:39:10 ralphm Kev: yes, but I don't think it quite works for an exchange standard between services
15:39:15 Kev Right.
15:39:26 Kev It works well when it's an internal transfer format.
15:39:30 Kev e.g. Ajaxy things.
15:39:30 stpeter right
15:40:05 stpeter Kev: but internal is the new external
15:40:17 Kev Please let's not get started with that silliness here.
15:40:47 ralphm Well, it is used for APIs quite a bit too
15:40:53 stpeter looks like I need to update http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/
15:41:04 stpeter ralphm: it seems you were DNV on XEP 65
15:41:08 ralphm and as long as those namespaces are controlled by one entity for a particular service, that's probably ok
15:41:16 ralphm stpeter: noo?
15:42:01 bene has left
15:42:18 ralphm stpeter: that's sad. I am +1 on the changes. Didn't I pass this on?
15:42:24 Kev NAFAIK.
15:42:49 ralphm Let me get my time machine then.
15:44:23 ralphm cya
15:44:38 ralphm has left
15:46:11 stpeter I might have missed it
15:46:28 stpeter (sorry, was replying to email and processing XEPs so I missed ralphm)
15:46:41 stpeter updates the voting table and takes appropriate XEP Editor actions
15:47:36 stpeter scrolls up to determine action items
15:50:13 emcho has left
15:50:25 stpeter another action item for next week is http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html (it's been updated to reflect earlier feedback)
15:51:15 Kev Have they asked for another vote, then?
15:52:01 stpeter they asked me if it could be reconsidered given that they'd updated it, yes
15:53:01 Kev Ok.
15:54:47 stpeter Kev: how are we handling new XEP authors now w.r.t. git check-ins?
15:55:02 fippo stpeter: no action about 220 yet please - it seems some examples (13) are buggy and I still need to read the latest version
15:55:29 stpeter fippo: right -- we're waiting for a vote from Nathan Fritz as well
15:55:35 stpeter ack
15:56:24 stpeter reads http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/110420/ instead of continually scrolling up
15:59:30 Kev stpeter: We use the Gitosis stuff to give them access, I guess.
15:59:39 Kev Or just ask them to fork us on Gitorious and you can do stuff that way.
16:01:04 stpeter the latter seems easier :)
16:09:42 stpeter http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ updated
16:13:40 Kev Thanks.
16:14:18 MattJ > "My apologies for the error, naturally that is 2011-05-10."
16:14:36 MattJ stpeter, I signed the date on a bank form the other day as "2009", you're forgiven :)
16:17:16 stpeter haha
16:17:24 stpeter at least I have the decade correct
16:19:09 stpeter corrects an error in http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ (MW to vote on list about the dialback spec)
16:49:49 fippo has left
17:44:23 Tobias has joined
17:53:46 Tobias has left
17:54:25 Tobias has joined
18:28:08 Tobias has left
19:01:35 Tobias has joined
19:18:35 Tobias has left
19:18:43 Tobias has joined
23:42:58 stpeter has left
23:51:29 Tobias has left