XMPP Council - 2011-06-15

  1. stpeter has joined

  2. linuxwolf has joined

  3. MattJ has joined

  4. linuxwolf has left

  5. linuxwolf has joined

  6. linuxwolf waves?

  7. MattJ too?

  8. Kev


  9. Kev

    Got a minute yet, though.

  10. MattJ


  11. linuxwolf

    I already have us 1 minute past time

  12. Kev

    Now we're on time.

  13. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  14. Kev

    I'm here.

  15. Kev

    Ralph sends apologies.

  16. linuxwolf


  17. Kev

    Nathan appears absent.

  18. MattJ

    I'm here

  19. Kev


  20. Kev

    2) Agenda bashing.

  21. MattJ


  22. linuxwolf


  23. stpeter

    I might have an AOB at the end

  24. Kev


  25. 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

  26. MattJ


  27. Kev

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

  28. Kev

    But I am OK with it.

  29. linuxwolf

    +1 also

  30. 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

  31. MattJ


  32. Kev

    +1 also.

  33. MattJ

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

  34. Kev

    Oh, I seem to have missed 3)

  35. MattJ

    But I guess it's technically right

  36. Kev

    Let's do that next :)

  37. linuxwolf

    will vote on the list…need to read it again

  38. Kev


  39. Kev

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

  40. MattJ

    It's changed already?

  41. stpeter

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

  42. MattJ

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

  43. stpeter

    right, audio is more than voice

  44. linuxwolf


  45. stpeter

    I think it captures consensus from the jingle@ list

  46. linuxwolf

    Pedantic Wednesday

  47. stpeter

    linuxwolf: ;-)

  48. Kev

    I'm +1 on lastcalling, anyway.

  49. MattJ


  50. linuxwolf

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

  51. stpeter

    some, or only Arc? ;-)

  52. linuxwolf

    well, ok…one (-:

  53. MattJ


  54. Kev

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

  55. Kev

    6) Discuss 0220 (Dialback).

  56. stpeter

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

  57. MattJ

    That's what LC is for

  58. linuxwolf

    true, hence my +1 d-:

  59. MattJ

    What are the open issues with 220?

  60. linuxwolf


  61. stpeter


  62. Kev

    Do we have agreement between the authors on this yet?

  63. stpeter

    we need to settle on the features stuff

  64. linuxwolf


  65. stpeter

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

  66. Kev

    You know me, I rarely have opinions :D

  67. stpeter


  68. MattJ

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

  69. linuxwolf

    I've already stated mine previously

  70. stpeter

    ok I will follow up on the list, then

  71. MattJ


  72. Kev

    7) Discuss 0299 (Video codecs).

  73. stpeter


  74. Kev

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

  75. Kev

    Which I am.

  76. stpeter

    so I pubilshed that on Sunday without Council approval

  77. stpeter


  78. stpeter


  79. stpeter

    or somesuch

  80. linuxwolf

    it's ok with me

  81. MattJ


  82. Kev


  83. Kev

    8) Date of next meeting

  84. Kev

    Same bat time, same bat channel?

  85. stpeter


  86. stpeter


  87. Kev

    Hey hey.

  88. Kev

    Remember who's in charge here!

  89. Kev

    9) AOB.

  90. 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

  91. stpeter


  92. stpeter

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

  93. MattJ

    waqas's approach seems sensible

  94. linuxwolf

    seems about right to me

  95. 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

  96. Kev

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

  97. MattJ

    stpeter, mmm, that's nice

  98. linuxwolf

    agree with the namespacing

  99. stpeter

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

  100. stpeter

    and it would be revised when we change our recommendations

  101. stpeter


  102. stpeter

    a "living document" if you will

  103. stpeter

    seem reasonable?

  104. stpeter

    s/defies/defines/ :)

  105. Kev

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

  106. MattJ

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

  107. stpeter

    MattJ: right

  108. stpeter

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

  109. linuxwolf


  110. stpeter

    that's all from me, I think

  111. Kev

    Anyone else?

  112. stpeter

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

  113. MattJ


  114. MattJ


  115. Kev

    Right, so I think we're done.

  116. stpeter


  117. Kev

    Thanks all.

  118. Kev bangs the gavel.

  119. stpeter

    thank you!

  120. linuxwolf


  121. MattJ


  122. stpeter

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

  123. stpeter


  124. stpeter

    perhaps only Ralph

  125. stpeter


  126. stpeter

    only Nathan

  127. stpeter


  128. stpeter

    too much multitasking

  129. stpeter

    calendar updated to reflect next week's meeting

  130. MattJ

    Thanks :)

  131. julm has joined

  132. stpeter


  133. stpeter

    I've been screwing things up lately

  134. Kev

    Time for a holiday, then.

  135. stpeter

    yeah right

  136. stpeter

    case in point: XEP-0171

  137. stpeter


  138. stpeter

    I'll wait longer on 198 :P

  139. MattJ

    stpeter, what did you screw up with 171?

  140. MattJ

    The # thing?

  141. MattJ

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

  142. stpeter

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

  143. stpeter


  144. MattJ

    Oh, I see

  145. stpeter


  146. linuxwolf has left

  147. linuxwolf has joined

  148. linuxwolf has left

  149. linuxwolf has joined

  150. linuxwolf has left

  151. linuxwolf has joined

  152. linuxwolf has left

  153. linuxwolf has joined

  154. linuxwolf has left

  155. stpeter has left