XMPP Council - 2011-11-09

  1. ralphm has left

  2. linuxwolf has joined

  3. stpeter has joined

  4. Zash has joined

  5. Florob has joined

  6. MattJ has joined

  7. Florob has left

  8. Florob has joined

  9. Florob has left

  10. Florob has joined

  11. dwd has joined

  12. MattJ needs to implement POKE so someone can wake him if he falls asleep during the meeting

  13. stpeter


  14. linuxwolf

    step 1: build a robot

  15. MattJ


  16. Kev

    Right, I'm here now, let's see if I can remember to be here in 20 minutes. I'd completely forgotten until I sat down at my machine.

  17. linuxwolf


  18. MattJ

    Kev, don't worry, I'm here trying to read XEPs and stay awake

  19. Kev

    I managed to read them earlier.

  20. stpeter

    MattJ: those will put you to sleep!

  21. MattJ

    Indeed they are

  22. MattJ

    It's been a long day

  23. dwd

    MattJ, I think you'll find the days are actually getting quite short, now.

  24. MattJ

    Longer and longer for me

  25. dwd

    MattJ, Are you moving close to the speed of light?

  26. MattJ

    Working on it

  27. MattJ

    I feel like I've been fired through a collider if that's what you're wondering

  28. linuxwolf

    I think the constants of time won't be applying to me for the rest of the year

  29. dwd

    I misread that as colander.

  30. linuxwolf


  31. dwd

    Assumed that MattJ was feeling drained.

  32. Kev

    The colander of time?

  33. dwd

    Or perhaps strained.

  34. dwd

    It just opens up a whole vein of bad puns, doesn't it?

  35. linuxwolf

    Yes. Yes it does.

  36. MattJ groans

  37. dwd feels *so* proud.

  38. stpeter

    yay, got my inbox under 1500 messages

  39. MattJ

    dwd, for a series of puns based on something I didn't say? :)

  40. linuxwolf

    did you unsub from 82attendees@ietf.org? (-;

  41. MattJ

    dwd, your standards are slipping

  42. dwd

    stpeter, Unrecoverable storage failure?

  43. dwd

    MattJ, These are my standards, and if you don't like them, I have others.

  44. stpeter

    dwd: I wish

  45. stpeter

    I do see Ralph online, shall I ping him?

  46. Kev

    Can do, I did so a couple of minutes ago.

  47. stpeter


  48. ralphm has joined

  49. Kev


  50. Kev

    Right, are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.

  51. Kev

    1) Call for assorted baked products.

  52. Kev

    I'm here.

  53. MattJ took a moment to figure that out

  54. linuxwolf


  55. MattJ

    I'm here, in body at least

  56. stpeter

    linuxwolf: nice!

  57. Kev

    And assuming Ralph's join indicates he's here, let's continue.

  58. Kev

    2) Account management.

  59. ralphm

    I'm couch surfing

  60. Kev

    We said we'd ~vote on accepting this once we'd had community feedback and the author had responded.

  61. Kev

    I saw a number of comments suggesting this was not the right approach, and I don't remember any in support of it; is that about right?

  62. linuxwolf


  63. linuxwolf

    even a call to move (part of) this to another venue

  64. Kev

    For my part, I've got two main concerns with it:

  65. Kev

    1) Using stream features for this is Wrong. 2) The XSF can't be the appropriate place to develop a new security model.

  66. linuxwolf


  67. stpeter

    #2 is rather significant

  68. Kev

    I might be persuaded to let it through if just 1) was the problem, but when 2) is in the same document, I don't think we can even put it on the vine.

  69. linuxwolf

    my thoughts exactly

  70. MattJ

    I think that makes sense

  71. ralphm

    I agree

  72. MattJ

    If we're going to rework all the clients and servers to use a new IBR protocol (when the current one is working ok for most purposes) then we should make sure we go about it properly

  73. Tobias has joined

  74. ralphm

    we can use security models or promote the development of them

  75. ralphm

    but we need Those Guys™

  76. Kev

    So I think my suggestions for the author are to 1) look at a more appropriate way of managing user accounts than stream features (the suggestion of first binding with ANONYMOUS and then doing something quite like iq:register sounds right to me). 2) Look at getting the new security model standardised through the IETF, so a XEP can work off the base of people who know more about this than the XSF.

  77. Kev

    I'll write a mail saying as much when I do the minutes.

  78. Kev

    I'm reading this as everyone being -1, is that correct?

  79. linuxwolf


  80. MattJ

    +1 2 -1

  81. MattJ

    (I know, I'm approaching dwd's standards)

  82. Kev

    That's asserting that dwd *has* standards...

  83. MattJ


  84. Kev

    Moving on then.

  85. Kev

    3) XEP-0258

  86. Kev

    Kurt's updated this, and would like us to vote on moving it to Draft

  87. MattJ

    You need to include names :)

  88. MattJ

    Oh, yes

  89. Kev

    (Although he made it clear he only wanted it voted on if the vote was going to pass it :))

  90. ralphm

    Kev aw!

  91. MattJ

    Kev, oh, that's that then... :)

  92. linuxwolf

    I guess he doesn't play the lottery much (-;

  93. MattJ

    Well, it all seems fine to me... I don't know the current implementation status of the new version though

  94. Kev

    Anyway, we've got this implemented in Swift, and the other we have this implemented in M-Link.

  95. dwd

    linuxwolf, He does, he only plays if he's certain to win, though.

  96. MattJ


  97. Kev

    And it seems to work ok.

  98. dwd

    Kev, Two implementations, strangely, for Gajim.

  99. MattJ

    Well I'm +1 to draft

  100. Kev

    (So I'm +1)

  101. Kev

    linuxwolf / ralphm?

  102. dwd

    Kev, Also Prosody server-side. RUmour of another XEP-0258 client or two soon, as well.

  103. ralphm


  104. ralphm


  105. ralphm

    hmm, major lag for some reason

  106. MattJ


  107. ralphm

    I am +1

  108. linuxwolf

    I'm tempted to vote −1 on the principle of risk assessment (-:

  109. linuxwolf

    but I am +1

  110. Kev


  111. Kev

    4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/correction.html

  112. MattJ


  113. linuxwolf

    I'll give Kurt a stern look next time I see him

  114. Kev

    (I'm in favour, natch)

  115. MattJ

    A XEP by any other name would be the same protocol, FWIW

  116. ralphm

    apparently dwd had such a nightmare on this he couldn't articulate it

  117. Kev

    MattJ: Right, I think we can quibble about names when it's on the vine.

  118. linuxwolf

    I am still concerned about the change of any arbitrary past message

  119. Kev

    linuxwolf: Which is why it says not to do that.

  120. dwd

    ralphm, Only with changing arbitrary past messages.

  121. ralphm

    I think it is a terrible feature for recognise that some people want it and don't object to the spec being experimental

  122. ralphm

    dwd: I forgot my sarcasmicon again?!

  123. linuxwolf

    wow…lag and burst

  124. Kev

    For those not keeping up, this version (unlike the version I put up an age ago) is correcting the most recent message only :)

  125. linuxwolf

    I've no objections to publishing

  126. stpeter

    noted :)

  127. Kev


  128. Kev

    5) The bas64 stuff in XEP9.

  129. Kev

    I'm +1

  130. linuxwolf

    but I don't see text saying a client MUST NOT correct a message that is not it's own

  131. ralphm


  132. ralphm

    linuxwolf: wait what?

  133. Kev

    linuxwolf: Ok, I'm happy to tidy that up. It explicitly says that you send this to correct the most recently sent message.

  134. linuxwolf


  135. linuxwolf


  136. ralphm

    linuxwolf: how would that work anyway?

  137. linuxwolf

    I'll save any further comments until I see xep-correct on the list (-:

  138. linuxwolf

    re XEP-009 … +1

  139. MattJ


  140. MattJ

    I somehow missed Kev's two XEP-0009 messages

  141. MattJ

    I thought linuxwolf's lag was going into reverse

  142. Kev

    6) XEP-0068 v1.2 http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1

  143. linuxwolf

    mindlag (-:

  144. MattJ

    Wait, where did this come from? :)

  145. Kev

    So, I missed the RFC leading up to this, and I don't really like it, so I need to go do some list reading, I think.

  146. ralphm


  147. stpeter

    no hurry

  148. ralphm

    I did read it, and this would be a possible conclusion

  149. stpeter

    see http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-October/025341.html

  150. MattJ

    It's an RFC already? Or still a draft?

  151. stpeter


  152. Kev

    I'd like to just pass this off to the next Council instead.

  153. ralphm

    I'm still wondering about suggesting a way to avoid conflict (in case no registration takes place), in the distributed extensibility sense

  154. stpeter

    Kev: sure

  155. Kev

    MattJ: I use the common term, not the right term :)

  156. MattJ

    Ok :)

  157. MattJ

    I thought stpeter might be fast-tracking his own documents for a moment :)

  158. stpeter

    MattJ: should go to Working Group Last Call at the IETF a few weeks from now, I'd expect

  159. Kev

    7 http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-unique.html

  160. stpeter

    as I said, no hurry

  161. MattJ

    Sigh, I'm still torn on this...

  162. linuxwolf

    I'm ambivalent

  163. MattJ

    I guess I think overall it should be published, mainly because it already has implementations

  164. ralphm

    I did like the suggestion of something like clark's notation, not the one form to rule them all

  165. MattJ

    A kind of non-historical historical

  166. linuxwolf


  167. Kev

    So, are we publishing?

  168. MattJ

    Nobody has to use or implement it if they don't want to

  169. MattJ

    But people have

  170. ralphm

    MattJ: are those implementation using that unauthorized namespace?

  171. MattJ

    So yes, publish

  172. MattJ

    The what what?

  173. ralphm


  174. linuxwolf

    no objections to publishing

  175. MattJ

    ralphm, why is it unauthorized?

  176. MattJ

    Prosody uses 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#unique' it seems, yes

  177. ralphm

    because, you know, it isn't a XEP yet, it is a new namespace and we use different ones now?

  178. Kev

    ralphm: It is a XEP, it's in XEP-0045.

  179. ralphm

    just asking. If there already is deployment, well, yeah

  180. Kev

    This is splitting it out.

  181. MattJ

    Well, that's my point about it being semi-historical

  182. stpeter

    we're just moving things around

  183. Kev


  184. Kev

    Five minutes to go and lots still to do. I don't want the last meeting of term running over!

  185. ralphm

    erm, I missed that, sorry

  186. Kev

    ralphm: Are you ok on publishing?

  187. ralphm

    +1 then

  188. Kev


  189. linuxwolf


  190. Kev

    8) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html

  191. ralphm

    we need more of those!

  192. ralphm

    distribute them all

  193. MattJ

    I haven't submitted mine yet!

  194. linuxwolf


  195. Kev

    This is an odd one. It seems to be taking the approach from FMUC, including copy/pasting blocks of the text from FMUC, but trying to publish it under a new author, with slightly different syntax.

  196. ralphm

    mattj: we'll reserve dmuc4 for you!

  197. MattJ

    Thank you

  198. MattJ

    I heard my next door neighbour wants to submit one too

  199. stpeter

    Kev: yeah, I think the author might want to simply post to the list -- perhaps it didn't even belong in the inbox

  200. MattJ

    Can he have dmuc5?

  201. linuxwolf

    focus please

  202. MattJ

    linuxwolf, I'm focusing hard

  203. ralphm

    Kev: can't we suggest he works with the fmuc people?

  204. Kev

    ralphm: We can, that's me.

  205. linuxwolf


  206. ralphm

    Kev: I know, this is you other hat, you know?

  207. Kev

    But I don't mind this going onto the vine, we've got 3 other variants up there already :)

  208. ralphm

    well, if it is mostly a copy I'm -1

  209. Kev

    ralphm: I think you should decide for yourself rather than using my biased summary :)

  210. MattJ

    Same, but I haven't read it, so if it's any more complicated I'm voting on list

  211. MattJ

    I'll vote on list

  212. Kev

    Ok, let's leave this clean and just leave it for the next Council, then.

  213. ralphm

    Kev: that was my plan

  214. Kev

    Rather than having the confusion of voting crossing the term end.

  215. MattJ

    Good point

  216. Kev

    I think that's everything, so:

  217. Kev

    9) Thanks folks.

  218. ralphm

    And thank you, Kev for chairing

  219. Kev

    Thanks all for the hard work.

  220. MattJ

    Thank you :)

  221. stpeter

    hear hear!

  222. MattJ

    20s left

  223. Kev

    10) Any other business

  224. ralphm

    beers, fireworks

  225. Kev

    (Lasting less than 10 seconds)

  226. MattJ


  227. linuxwolf


  228. dwd

    Oh, one more thing

  229. ralphm


  230. dwd

    Why do these meetings take so long?

  231. linuxwolf shoots evil eye @ dwd

  232. dwd cackles.

  233. Kev

    11) Fini.

  234. linuxwolf


  235. Kev

    Thanks folks, see you on the lists, good luck to the next Council.

  236. MattJ


  237. stpeter

    thanks indeed

  238. Kev

    I will sort out minutes, but not tonight.

  239. linuxwolf


  240. MattJ

    Oh yes, thanks for humouring me with the late meeting :)

  241. ralphm

    linuxwolf: care to translate?

  242. linuxwolf

    thank you to everyone?

  243. linuxwolf

    practicing my copy/paste Chinese (-:

  244. ralphm

    MattJ: It's ok! I will now go sleep

  245. MattJ

    linuxwolf, with a question mark because you're not quite sure? :)

  246. MattJ

    'night ralphm :)

  247. stpeter goes back to reviewing IRI WG issues

  248. linuxwolf

    MattJ: precisely

  249. MattJ

    stpeter, some people get all the fun

  250. ralphm


  251. linuxwolf goes to read more JOSE drafts

  252. stpeter

    enjoy :)

  253. linuxwolf

    I kinda wish it was called JOES

  254. linuxwolf


  255. ralphm

    linuxwolf: just buy some stickers

  256. ralphm

    use funky fonts

  257. ralphm


  258. ralphm


  259. linuxwolf


  260. linuxwolf

    maybe I can get ekr to raise a "point of order" on the WG name (-:

  261. ralphm

    I'm sure you could

  262. ralphm

    should be fun

  263. linuxwolf


  264. Florob has left

  265. ralphm has left

  266. Tobias has left

  267. MattJ has left

  268. linuxwolf has left