XMPP Council - 2011-04-27

good morning, afternoon, or evening as the case may be

Afternoon Peter.

Afternoon

!agendaclear

Kev: Done.

!agendaappend Vote on advancing XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method) to Draft http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-March/024267.html

Kev: Done.

!agendaappend Update XEP-0178 (Best Practices for Use of SASL EXTERNAL with Certificates) with the interim version 1.1rc5: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc5

Kev: Done.

!agendaappend Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html as a XEP?

Kev: Done.

!agendaappend Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP?

Kev: Done.

!agendaappend Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP?

Kev: Done.

!agenda

Kev: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda bashing 3) Vote on advancing XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport Method) to Draft http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-March/024267.html 4) Update XEP-0178 (Best Practices for Use of SASL EXTERNAL with Certificates) with the interim version 1.1rc5: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0178-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0178/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc5 5) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html as a XEP? 6) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP? 7) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP? 8) Date of next meeting 9) Any other business Fini

!agendaup 0

Kev: Command 'agendaup' failed: bot/scripts/agenda.lua:41: attempt to perform arithmetic on field '?' (a nil value)

!agendaup -10

Kev: Command 'agendaup' failed: bot/scripts/agenda.lua:41: attempt to perform arithmetic on field '?' (a nil value)

Hrmph.

Silly Lua.

!agendaup

Kev: Command 'agendaup' failed: bot/scripts/agenda.lua:41: attempt to perform arithmetic on field '?' (a nil value)

/whew

I apologize for my absence last week.

:)

Right, I guess we should think about starting.

Kev: Done.

Kev: Done.

Kev: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda bashing 3) Vote on advancing XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport 4) Update XEP-0178 (Best Practices for Use of SASL EXTERNAL with 5) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html as a XEP? 6) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP? 7) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP? 8) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP? 9) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP? 10) Date of next meeting 11) Any other business Fini

Kev: 0) Fini.

Kev: -10) Fini.

Kev: -9) Fini.

Yay, fixed

!agendaup 9

Kev: 0) Fini.

Let's start!

I don't see Ralph online

!agendaup

Kev: 1) Roll call

Yay Lua!

presente

here

ack, no sign of Ralph

MattJ: There?

Present

yay

!agendaup

Kev: 2) Agenda bashing

whoah, lag

None

No bashing

(yet)

heh

I don't think I have any bashing

nay

Good enough

!agendaup

Kev: 3) Vote on advancing XEP-0261 (Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport

I will vote onlist

It's not clear that we've had *any* feedback on the last call.

+to me

No, I didn't see any

Plus I wanted to implement this myself, but haven't yet :)

I'll vote on list

Which vaguely implies that no-one thinks it's needed to fill gaps etc.

I can't believe this is true.

Me neither, I think it's just a case that implementations aren't ready enough yet

I do hear desire for it…might just be too new still?

/shrug

as I recall there might be implementations in Pidgin and Psi

oh really

Oh.

not sure if those are released

I didn't know it was in Psi.

There might be an implementation in Gajim, but I'm not 100% sure

IBB is, not jingle

the spec is fairly trivial to be fair ;-)

well, someone poked me on-list about a Psi plugin or patch for Jingle file transfer

he wanted to know when the specs would be done :)

anyway we can round up the implementers

anyway, there's a typo in it, but i think it has been caught before :)

perhaps we should contact the authors and extend last call?

It'd be good to have *some* last call feedback before voting on this.

i implemented part of it, but the summer will bring more :)

Fritzy: Right.

we need to decide if we are going to require implementations, and implementation feedback, before advancing things to Draft

stpeter: Given that people have implemented this, it'd be good for them to speak up.

I didn't know that was up for decision :)

stpeter: did you have the invalid xml typo in example 1 already?

MattJ: it seems to be an implicit criterion here

stpeter, it begs the question of the purpose of last call if we don't really need any feedback

is there a reason why this xep is in last call btw?

hmph I thought I fixed that

shouldn't it be in last call together with all other jingle FT specs?

remko: because we're trying to get the whole jingle file transfer suite to Draft

stpeter: It's not that it's required to have implementations - it's that Last Call gave absolutely no feedback.

per http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-roadmap/

and given that this xep only adds some jingle sprinkles on top of an existing spec, i personally would suggest waiting for implementation feedback :)

and doing them all at the same time would have been too much for people to review

remko: chicken and egg

"oh I can't implement that, it's only experimental"

however

stpeter: right, makes sense. But the state of the ohter xeps is not up to date, which means nobody will implement this or be able to give feedback without being consistent with each other at least.

I'm happy to wait

I'd like to extend the last call, anyway

I mean, it's not like there is a huge hurry

XMPP is dying anyway :)

So let's update XEP-0001 for Final as the only state :)

Kev: +1 to that

+1 to an extension... 2 weeks?

heh

>_<

MattJ: Seems reasonable to me.

I can reach out to various people who have implemented this or have been thinking about it

stpeter, thanks, that would help

stpeter: That would be good, please.

same with the other jingle ft specs

/nod

Ok, moving on then.

stpeter: i looked at them, i can give you feedback too ;-)

!agendaup

Kev: 4) Update XEP-0178 (Best Practices for Use of SASL EXTERNAL with

with <it's a mystery>? :)

So broken :(

See the agenda sent to the mailing list :)

Certificates) with the interim version 1.1rc

5

(-:

I'm voting onlist on this anyway.

ditto

This, as dialback, is in my queue for thorough review

I need to take a look

Dialback I'm halfway through, but not completed yet

I forgot how long it was :)

Ok. Votes onlist in the next couple of weeks then.

!agendaup

Kev: 5) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html as a XEP?

Fritzy: As I recall, you were going to post your objections to-list for the authors to address, and I don't *remember* seeing that.

That's a very good question

I think the Council needs to re-review XEP-0220, given the recent discussions and the fact that one of the co-authors said my handling of it was "ridiculous"

Kev: You're right.

so I would propose a re-vote on the latest version (0.9)

stpeter: OK.

If we're going for a re-vote, Kev/stpeter please put me down as -1 on the last vote rather than DNV :)

(-:

Because I do think it needs further review

Anyway, sensors...

ugh

seems like a suggested practices XEP to me except for the parts that aren't. I'm -1, and I'll post about it on the list (I failed to last time)

So I'm not blocking sensors, I think.

Ok.

good, I can be −0 (-:

I never thought I'd see a non-humorous XEP with a section titled "Transducer values"

Please remember that the deal is that if you're -1 you have to post with justifications and potential remedies within a fortnight of doing so.

MattJ: At least it doesn't have "timey-wimey bits"

Kev: right

!agendaup

Kev: 6) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP?

or a "bugger' log level

I'm similarly not blocking this, although there seems to be list discussion as to whether it's the right aproach, it seems to be *an* approach that could be not broken.

+1 to sensors, +1 to coin

Yep, and I'm glad to see the discussion, but I see no reason this can't be an accepted XEP

not blocking either

Considering the number of DMUC XEPs we have :)

haha

+1

ok, +1 too

I largely think of Experimental as being "Not obviously the wrong approach"

Which brings us on to...

!agendaup

Kev: 7) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP?

:D

-1

-1

and I'll post some reasons why

like "does not meet the first requirement"

Can I re-post Dave's?

MattJ: why not (-:

this looks like it was taken directly from an XML.com article I read awhile back

linuxwolf, people read xml.com?

which noted the deficiencies of this encoding

I'm -1 as well, although I'll let linuxwolf post to the list first and add to it if I have anything else on top.

MattJ: occasionally, for the lulz (-:

MattJ: it's on my list to harmonize those DMUC things, but I won't get to it until June at this rate (first I need to do i18n stuff and that's taking me a while...)

linuxwolf, I thought it died a decade ago :)

MattJ: just before XMPP died (-:

stpeter, right, but again it needs to see implementation I think

stpeter: I think we should concentrate on i18n more than DMUC...personally

I'm 0

!agendaup

Kev: 8) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/coin.html as a XEP?

!agendaup

Kev: 9) Publish http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html as a XEP?

!agendaup

Kev: 10) Date of next meeting

There we go.

Next week is fine I think

Next Wed, same bat time, same bat channel?

should be fine for me, also

sure

Peter's not here then, hink.

correct

he'll be on a plane back from Amsterdam (-:

linuxwolf: agreed on DMUC

right, I won't be available next Wed

but you guys can handle things :)

Righty ho.

!agendaup

Kev: 11) Any other business

I was going to mention dialback, but I'll do so on-list

Anyway, fippo isn't here for me to stand behind

as I said, I think the Council needs to re-vote on 220 0.9

yeah, dialback … I need to read it again, and I'm going to pester some locals to read it with me

perhaps it is indeed ridiculous

It doesn't seem to be so far :)

but 0.8 really bothered me because it was so confusing

I would rather the author not be confused by their own spec

(-:

I think the improvements are good overall

we needed to go in one direction or another, and perhaps fippo didn't like the direction I took

So we've got got anything for AOB?

his statements were a bit cryptic to me

Beyond adding 220 for next week, which is in my TODO.

none here

stpeter, he's given me similar cryptic statements this morning that I need to decipher :)

Kev: it doesn't sound like it…but we do have an agenda item for next week (-: (XEP-0220)

gah…meatspace lag

per remko's comments, I think it might be useful to update XEP-0234 before pushing forward with the rest of the Jingle FT suite

Righty ho. Are we dones then?

(T −0:02)

remko and I were just chatting via PM, and he noted that 234 is wildly out of sync with 260/261

hrm

I have 234 printed and will review it on the plane or in an airport sometime in the next week

/nod

so we could do 260, 261, and 234 together

that makes sense to me

not in a huge hurry :)

:)

sounds good to me

I think that's a "we're done".

So

yep

"are we done yet?"

done

Thanks all.

(-:

adios

I'll sort out minutes tomorrow or so.

"are we *almost* done yet"? ;-)

I'm still trying to figure out what "meatspace lag" entails

I'll get comments about json by Friday

MattJ: IRL interrupt?

Possibly :)

that's my interpretation

OK

MattJ: "engineer needs coffee badly"

Heh

and some interuptions

I need to pack for my trip

anyway…I'm late! (-:

I'll be in and out, but mostly out

thanks guys

I still need to read all the position papers for http://www.w3.org/2011/track-privacy/ -- I suppose I'll be doing that on the plane today :)