linuxwolfthen who have I been talking to all this time?!?!!!111!!!eleventy11!! (-:
KevI sign my mail either
Best,
/K
or
/K
stpeterhehe
KevDoes that count?
linuxwolfheh
Wojtekhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhi
stpeterhi Ralph!
KevHi Ralph.
linuxwolfwaves
erikhas joined
MattJhas joined
MattJwaves
KevHi Matt.
MattJThis meeting can't go past 11:30, or I have to run :)
KevDamn, it's alread 15:54 now.
stpeterMr. EDT!
MattJOh well
MattJstpeter, my watch is still in GMT :)
stpeterheh
MattJBut my schedule isn't
linuxwolf(-:
Astrohas joined
KevDingding.
KevSo, onwards.
Kev1) Roll call.
KevI'm free!
linuxwolfpresente
MattJPresent
ralphm:-)
Kev2) Agenda Ba^w^whttp://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html
Accept as XEP?
linuxwolf+1
MattJ+1
stpeterneeds some work, clearly
Kevstpeter: Yes, but that can be done in place.
stpeterrigh
stpeterright even
ralphm+1
KevI think the 198 discussion is interesting. I'm actually in favour of that, despite it making neither M-Link nor Swift compliant (neither do Resume).
Kev(I'm +1, to be clear)
Kev3) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/commenting.html
Accept as XEP?
ralphmKev: agreed on 198
KevI've asked the BuddyCloud guys to comment on this on list, because it seems like their area of expertise; I have no objection to publication at the moment.
MattJI haven't read it in detail, but it seems sane, I'm +1
linuxwolf+1 also
ralphm+1 on commenting. Very interesting, although I want to go through it a with a fine comb
stpeter(we did have discussion about splitting 198 into two pieces, but Matthew convinced me that acking and resuming belong together)
ralphmstpeter: nod
KevI think they do.
MattJstpeter, +1
KevYou really want both features.
MattJI started the discussion :)
stpeteryes
stpeterMattJ: faulty memory
Kev4) LC on XEP-0296?
KevI think I'll have comments on this on-list, but I'm happy to LC it.
MattJ+1 for LC
linuxwolfobvious +1 from me (-:
ralphm+1
Kev5) Date of next meeting.
ralphmshould it also be in compliance?
KevSBTSBC?
MattJSBTSBC++
Astroprepares a comment on the Commenting XEP...
linuxwolfralphm: that's my thought…and why I'd like LC to be sooner rather than later
linuxwolfKev: WFM
Kevralphm: Well, there's a discussion. I think it'd be worth seeing how the LC goes.
KevAstro: Thanks.
ralphmKev: agreed
KevI think that's everyone agreed on date.
Kev6) Any other business.
stpeterI like "Users leave comments on just about anything" :)
KevI liked the opening sentence.
stpeterhmm, AOB
stpeterare we closer to done on dialback?
stpeterI can incorporate the one fix from fippo and push out a new version
stpeterseems like we'd want a second LC
KevIt's not clear to me whether fippo is now happy with it (with his fix pushed).
linuxwolfstpeter: /nod … unless you want to act unilaterally (-: /ducks
MattJHe's happy with little at the moment :)
stpeterit's not clear to me if fippo is ever happy ;-)
Neustradamushas left
KevNot that this is necessarily a requirement, but I think knowing is a requirement :)
stpeterI have a broader question about dialback, though
stpeterif we have a few minutes
MattJis all ears
KevI don't think we've had the situation before where authors have been is such disagreement.
KevSo how to resolve it is a little new to me.
linuxwolfthere was one time in the distant past...
stpeterKev: new for me, too
ralphmhappiness is overrated?
ralphmhah
linuxwolfhehe
stpeterso
Kevlinuxwolf: Oh. A memory stirs. XHTML-IM?
stpeterthe broader issue is: does this belong in the XMPP WG?
stpeterI think it might
stpeterbecause of the DNA/DNSSEC work
Wojtekhas left
Kevstpeter: I think that's a credible argument, at least.
ralphmgood point
linuxwolfyes
ralphmkinda funny that we pulled it out of an RFC
stpeterso I think it might make sense to fold DNA/DNSSEC in with the dialback spec and the bidi extension
stpeterand publish it all as an RFC on XMPP S2S
stpeterralphm: right :)
MattJThat would actually be nice
Kevstpeter: I can see drawbacks to this.
stpeterthe IETF security mafia objected to dialback years ago because "it's not secure" -- but if we use DNSSEC then in fact dialback has useful security properties
KevLargely that you're pushing the experimental in with the established, and it risks how you judge that implementations are compliant.
stpeterKev: right
stpeterhmm
KevI would be a little reluctant to make a move that would mean we have a sum total of zero servers that implement S2S.
MattJNothing on the internet is "secure" :)
ralphmKev: nod
ralphmYeah, I don't care for the non-secure argument, we all know the trade-offs
stpeterKev: another approach would be to do all this work at the XSF, and then eventually publish an RFC when we publish 6120 bis a few years from now
KevSo, if the RFC route is taken, I think it's probably better to publish two - one with what we have, and one with what we want.
stpeterbut splitting things across IETF and XSF feels a bit odd here
stpeteranyway
stpeterI just wanted to raise the issue
Kevralphm: Well, the IETF security guys *have* to complain that it's not secure, that's their purpose. What then happens is a matter for pragmatism.
stpeterthere will be discussions in Quebec City about DNA/DNSSEC
linuxwolfit also matters what your definition of "secure" is
Kevstpeter: I'm not opposed to the idea, at least at first glance, - just the implementation of rolling everything into one RFC.
linuxwolfwhich is hard to get them to nail down sometimes (-:
ralphmHaven't we earlier taken initial work as XEPs to then incorporate them into an RFC?
stpeterralphm: yes indeed
linuxwolfralphm: yes, privacy
ralphmI don't see how it hurts to first have a few XEPs, worked on by the same people as in the WG
linuxwolfthe DNSSEC/DNA stuff will happen the IETF with or without us
ralphmunless there are legal issues around this
stpeterand roster versioning and so on
stpeterwell, the XMPP WG is just the folks who participate
ralphmmy point
stpeterthe IETF is not some monolithic entity
linuxwolftrue
linuxwolfwell, it's not a 1:1 mapping of standard@ and xmppwg@ commenters
stpeterKev: your point about two documents is well taken
KevSo, what do we need to discuss about this here? Anything, or was it an airing?
stpeterKev: as in, publish dialback-core and dna-using-dialback with a reference to dialback-core
linuxwolftwo documents actually sounds like a good way to go…whether they're XEPs or RFCs
ralphmCan't we just have the discussion on the xmppwg mailinglist and defere standards@ to that? We have multiple different lists for specific interest areas
Kevstpeter: Yes, with bibi probably belonging in the latter, because that's also new and exciting.
stpeterso for now I think it's fine to proceed with XEP-0220, but it would be nice to get it done
stpeterKev: yes
linuxwolfand you want some level of assurance above "(non SEC) DNS lookups worked"
linuxwolf(for bidi)
stpeterand eventually I think we might republish 220 back at the IETF, but there's no hurry about it (could be done when we do the great republish of 6120bis, 6121bis, 6122bis, etc.)
stpeter(if we do :)
ralphmI have to cut out the meeting now to catch my train. Thanks all.
linuxwolf/nod
stpeteryep
stpeterok
stpeterthat's all from me
stpeterno action required
KevThanks Ralph.
stpeterjust an airing
KevI think we're done anyway :)
linuxwolfnice and short
KevSo, any other any other business?
stpeterany other AOB? ;-)
MattJNo AOB
stpeternone here
linuxwolfnot directly council related, per se (-:
KevFab.
KevIn that case, thanks all!
Kevgabs the bangle.
linuxwolfneed to add my comments to the "Great XSF Reset" discussion
linuxwolf(-:
stpeterloves the word "fab" and needs to use it more often but can't quite bring it off with that British panache
Kevlinuxwolf: I think there we may have a gift that keeps on giving.
stpeterI haven't yet read any of the messages that came in on that thread overnight
KevMost were me.
linuxwolfKev: as long as it's not "We need a better name than XSF" again…and again…and again...
Kevlinuxwolf: Those Jabber guys are evil.
linuxwolfexactly
KevI was there, I remember :)
linuxwolfthey should be hoisted by their own petards
linuxwolf(-:
stpeterThose Jabber guys *were* evil.
stpeternot sure if they've reformed since then
linuxwolfat least one hasn't...apparently
KevI think at least one raised issue is important.
linuxwolfgoes to read and comment on emails
ralphmhas left
KevThere is a perception, at least from some, that Council and Board aren't doing their jobs, and we clearly need to address this.
KevOr, well, I assert that we need to address this.
linuxwolfagreed
stpeterKev: I'll wait for your minutes before issuing a LC on 296, and I think we might need to clarify the basis for such actions, but in general I think it is acceptable for a simple majority of Council members present to make a decision to issue a Last Call (i.e., no need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in)
stpeteractually I think the Council is doing a fine job
KevGiven that LC isn't an advancement action, per se, I think I'd buy that.
stpeterright
stpeterI think http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/policies-and-procedures/ is not quite clear on the matter
KevI think Council is, in some ways, doing better than it did at one point.
stpeteragreed!
KevI feel it's taken how ever many years it is to start to work out what the Chair should be doing, and try to start doing it.
KevI think if the outcome of this debate is that Board and Council become more accountable, this is a good thing.
stpeterwell the Board's mandate is not as clear as the Council's, which is part of the challenge
stpeterand, for the record, I think Kev does an excellent job as Council Chair
Kevstpeter: It's true, but it also makes it hard to not wonder if they're pulling their weight. Their mandate to be doing stuff may not be clear, but the perception that unless stuff is being done they're not meeting their mandate seems hard to counter.
KevAww, thanks.
KevCouncil is almost as simple as "Are there being votes on XEPs? Please tick as appropriate".
Kev(To judge whether the job is being done)
stpeter:)
stpeterI do think it would help to clarify what a council "vote" is
stpeterand when the two-week period applies
KevYes.
stpetere.g., perhaps that applies only to advancement, not to acceptance (0.1) or last calls
stpeterthat's how I'd think of it
KevI would be happy with something like:
Acceptance you have until the meeting to complain.
Advancement you have a fortnight after the meeting.
KevOr something.
KevAlthough as I noted on list, if we were to do the former we'd need to not count submissions made 30seconds before the meeting.
stpeterright
stpeterwe'd need all submissions to happen a week before
KevI do like the idea of people being able to autosubmit their stuff, and authors being able to autoupdate their Experimentals, and things.
KevI realise I have commit access to the repository, but I don't have access (or have access but not authority) to publish a new version.
stpeternot sure we have enough publication activity to warrant work on automated tools, although I have no objection to doing so
KevSetting up an email address to which you can send new versions, or a web form through which you can upload, or whatever, and have everything happen automagically sounds terribly swish.
KevI accept there may well be an issue of perception rather than efficacy here.
stpeterheh
stpeterthe IETF has tools for that
stpeterhttp://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/
KevRight, I'm aware of it, although haven't used it.
stpeterKev: I'd be happy to work with you, via the list or not, on revisions to http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/policies-and-procedures/
stpeterproposed revisions for review and approval by the rest of the Council, that is
KevThanks. I think the best thing is probably to wait a short while for the list discussion to die down (maybe it already has, or maybe it'll errupt now those Merkin types have worken up) and see what seems prudent from that.
stpetersure
stpeterspeaking of which, I need to catch up :)
stpeterbut first I need to wash my breakfast dishes, brb
KevEnjoy!
KevI'm looking forward to dinner right now ;)
bearhas joined
stpeterOT: it's starnge that there's no equivalent for "bon appetit" in English... http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/bonappetit.htm
stpeterstrange, even
stpetergoes back to his email client
KevOh, there is, isn't there?
Kev"Enjoy"
stpeterright
stpeterthere must be some old English phrase to bring back
bearhas left
KevRight, let's see if I can get those minutes out quickly.
Kevstpeter: Sorry, I realise I wasn't clear earlier in AOB. I'm happy with the namespacing for 220, as I said on list at the time, I'm not blocking on that.
stpeterright, I understood
KevI think there were no actions arising from that AOB. Is that your understanding?