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