XMPP Council - 2011-06-15

  1. linuxwolf waves?

  2. MattJ too?

  3. Kev


  4. Kev

    Got a minute yet, though.

  5. MattJ


  6. linuxwolf

    I already have us 1 minute past time

  7. Kev

    Now we're on time.

  8. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  9. Kev

    I'm here.

  10. Kev

    Ralph sends apologies.

  11. linuxwolf


  12. Kev

    Nathan appears absent.

  13. MattJ

    I'm here

  14. Kev


  15. Kev

    2) Agenda bashing.

  16. MattJ


  17. linuxwolf


  18. stpeter

    I might have an AOB at the end

  19. Kev


  20. Kev

    4) Approve version 1.1rc1 of "XEP-0171: Language Translation"? http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0171-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0171/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc1

  21. MattJ


  22. Kev

    I'm OK with this only because Peter's checked with the authors and we believe them to be the only implementors.

  23. Kev

    But I am OK with it.

  24. linuxwolf

    +1 also

  25. Kev

    5) Approve version 1.3rc2 of "XEP-0198: Stream Management"? http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0198-1.3.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0198/diff/1.2/vs/1.3rc2

  26. MattJ


  27. Kev

    +1 also.

  28. MattJ

    The only comment I have is that the new paragraph in section 5 threw me for a second

  29. Kev

    Oh, I seem to have missed 3)

  30. MattJ

    But I guess it's technically right

  31. Kev

    Let's do that next :)

  32. linuxwolf

    will vote on the list…need to read it again

  33. Kev


  34. Kev

    3) Last call on XEP-0266 (Jingle Voice codecs)?

  35. MattJ

    It's changed already?

  36. stpeter

    MattJ: there was a comment on the list about that point in 198

  37. MattJ

    the current vesion says "XEP-0266: Codecs for Jingle Audio"

  38. stpeter

    right, audio is more than voice

  39. linuxwolf


  40. stpeter

    I think it captures consensus from the jingle@ list

  41. linuxwolf

    Pedantic Wednesday

  42. stpeter

    linuxwolf: ;-)

  43. Kev

    I'm +1 on lastcalling, anyway.

  44. MattJ


  45. linuxwolf

    +1, although there's already some dissent on the standards@ list

  46. stpeter

    some, or only Arc? ;-)

  47. linuxwolf

    well, ok…one (-:

  48. MattJ


  49. Kev

    Last call is a chance for such feedback to be heard.

  50. Kev

    6) Discuss 0220 (Dialback).

  51. stpeter

    rough consensus -- as they say in the IETF, he might be in the rough

  52. MattJ

    That's what LC is for

  53. linuxwolf

    true, hence my +1 d-:

  54. MattJ

    What are the open issues with 220?

  55. linuxwolf


  56. stpeter


  57. Kev

    Do we have agreement between the authors on this yet?

  58. stpeter

    we need to settle on the features stuff

  59. linuxwolf


  60. stpeter

    I was just poking the Council in case they have opinions in the matter

  61. Kev

    You know me, I rarely have opinions :D

  62. stpeter


  63. MattJ

    None that I haven't given on-list as an implementor :)

  64. linuxwolf

    I've already stated mine previously

  65. stpeter

    ok I will follow up on the list, then

  66. MattJ


  67. Kev

    7) Discuss 0299 (Video codecs).

  68. stpeter


  69. Kev

    Mostly just are we happy that this was an editorial change splitting it in two and don't need Council to approve it.

  70. Kev

    Which I am.

  71. stpeter

    so I pubilshed that on Sunday without Council approval

  72. stpeter


  73. stpeter


  74. stpeter

    or somesuch

  75. linuxwolf

    it's ok with me

  76. MattJ


  77. Kev


  78. Kev

    8) Date of next meeting

  79. Kev

    Same bat time, same bat channel?

  80. stpeter


  81. stpeter


  82. Kev

    Hey hey.

  83. Kev

    Remember who's in charge here!

  84. Kev

    9) AOB.

  85. stpeter

    I'm wondering if any council members have ideas about how to handle hash agility -- http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-June/024599.html

  86. stpeter


  87. stpeter

    I thought next meeting was always the last item on the agenda, my bad

  88. MattJ

    waqas's approach seems sensible

  89. linuxwolf

    seems about right to me

  90. stpeter

    MattJ: I'm wondering if we want to define different elements in special namespaces like urn:xmpp:hashes:sha1 -- that way <sha1 xmlns='urn:xmpp:hashes:sha1'>...</sha1> could be included in any XMPP element

  91. Kev

    I'm happy with leaving SI to wither and fixing this in Jingle, and namespacing the elements seems fine to me.

  92. MattJ

    stpeter, mmm, that's nice

  93. linuxwolf

    agree with the namespacing

  94. stpeter

    so we might have a separate document that defies "hash functions for XMPP"

  95. stpeter

    and it would be revised when we change our recommendations

  96. stpeter


  97. stpeter

    a "living document" if you will

  98. stpeter

    seem reasonable?

  99. stpeter

    s/defies/defines/ :)

  100. Kev

    With no time to digest the idea, it doesn't seem unreasonable.

  101. MattJ

    It would certainly help the current state of ad-hoc hashes included in each XEP

  102. stpeter

    MattJ: right

  103. stpeter

    I will look at the different XEPs and perhaps get a protoXEP ready for next week

  104. linuxwolf


  105. stpeter

    that's all from me, I think

  106. Kev

    Anyone else?

  107. stpeter

    plus if I get it ready quickly, it could be XEP-0300 :)

  108. MattJ


  109. MattJ


  110. Kev

    Right, so I think we're done.

  111. stpeter


  112. Kev

    Thanks all.

  113. Kev bangs the gavel.

  114. stpeter

    thank you!

  115. linuxwolf


  116. MattJ


  117. stpeter

    Kev, it seems that Nathan and Ralph are DNV on 262

  118. stpeter


  119. stpeter

    perhaps only Ralph

  120. stpeter


  121. stpeter

    only Nathan

  122. stpeter


  123. stpeter

    too much multitasking

  124. stpeter

    calendar updated to reflect next week's meeting

  125. MattJ

    Thanks :)

  126. stpeter


  127. stpeter

    I've been screwing things up lately

  128. Kev

    Time for a holiday, then.

  129. stpeter

    yeah right

  130. stpeter

    case in point: XEP-0171

  131. stpeter


  132. stpeter

    I'll wait longer on 198 :P

  133. MattJ

    stpeter, what did you screw up with 171?

  134. MattJ

    The # thing?

  135. MattJ

    If so, wasn't it really council's job to spot that too? :)

  136. stpeter

    no, I pushed out 1.1 without waiting for votes from the Council members who weren't able to attend the meeting :(

  137. stpeter


  138. MattJ

    Oh, I see

  139. stpeter