KevWe said we'd ~vote on accepting this once we'd had community feedback and the author had responded.
KevI 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?
linuxwolfcorrect
linuxwolfeven a call to move (part of) this to another venue
KevFor my part, I've got two main concerns with it:
Kev1) Using stream features for this is Wrong.
2) The XSF can't be the appropriate place to develop a new security model.
linuxwolf/nod
stpeter#2 is rather significant
KevI 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.
linuxwolfmy thoughts exactly
MattJI think that makes sense
ralphmI agree
MattJIf 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
Tobiashas joined
ralphmwe can use security models or promote the development of them
ralphmbut we need Those Guys™
KevSo 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.
KevI'll write a mail saying as much when I do the minutes.
KevI'm reading this as everyone being -1, is that correct?
linuxwolf/agreed
MattJ+1 2 -1
MattJ(I know, I'm approaching dwd's standards)
KevThat's asserting that dwd *has* standards...
MattJTrue
KevMoving on then.
Kev3) XEP-0258
KevKurt's updated this, and would like us to vote on moving it to Draft
MattJYou need to include names :)
MattJOh, yes
Kev(Although he made it clear he only wanted it voted on if the vote was going to pass it :))
ralphmKev aw!
MattJKev, oh, that's that then... :)
linuxwolfI guess he doesn't play the lottery much (-;
MattJWell, it all seems fine to me... I don't know the current implementation status of the new version though
KevAnyway, we've got this implemented in Swift, and the other we have this implemented in M-Link.
dwdlinuxwolf, He does, he only plays if he's certain to win, though.
MattJOk
KevAnd it seems to work ok.
dwdKev, Two implementations, strangely, for Gajim.
MattJWell I'm +1 to draft
Kev(So I'm +1)
Kevlinuxwolf / ralphm?
dwdKev, Also Prosody server-side. RUmour of another XEP-0258 client or two soon, as well.
ralphmsurprising
ralphm.
ralphmhmm, major lag for some reason
MattJwfm
ralphmI am +1
linuxwolfI'm tempted to vote −1 on the principle of risk assessment (-:
KevFive minutes to go and lots still to do. I don't want the last meeting of term running over!
ralphmerm, I missed that, sorry
Kevralphm: Are you ok on publishing?
ralphm+1 then
KevExcellent.
linuxwolfpubit!
Kev8) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html
ralphmwe need more of those!
ralphmdistribute them all
MattJI haven't submitted mine yet!
linuxwolfDISTRIBUTE ALL THE THINGS!
KevThis 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.
ralphmmattj: we'll reserve dmuc4 for you!
MattJThank you
MattJI heard my next door neighbour wants to submit one too
stpeterKev: yeah, I think the author might want to simply post to the list -- perhaps it didn't even belong in the inbox
MattJCan he have dmuc5?
linuxwolffocus please
MattJlinuxwolf, I'm focusing hard
ralphmKev: can't we suggest he works with the fmuc people?
Kevralphm: We can, that's me.
linuxwolf(-:
ralphmKev: I know, this is you other hat, you know?
KevBut I don't mind this going onto the vine, we've got 3 other variants up there already :)
ralphmwell, if it is mostly a copy I'm -1
Kevralphm: I think you should decide for yourself rather than using my biased summary :)
MattJSame, but I haven't read it, so if it's any more complicated I'm voting on list
MattJI'll vote on list
KevOk, let's leave this clean and just leave it for the next Council, then.
ralphmKev: that was my plan
KevRather than having the confusion of voting crossing the term end.
MattJGood point
KevI think that's everything, so:
Kev9) Thanks folks.
ralphmAnd thank you, Kev for chairing
KevThanks all for the hard work.
MattJThank you :)
stpeterhear hear!
MattJ20s left
Kev10) Any other business
ralphmbeers, fireworks
Kev(Lasting less than 10 seconds)
MattJNone
linuxwolfnay
dwdOh, one more thing
ralphm:-D
dwdWhy do these meetings take so long?
linuxwolfshoots evil eye @ dwd
dwdcackles.
Kev11) Fini.
linuxwolf再见
KevThanks folks, see you on the lists, good luck to the next Council.
MattJ+1
stpeterthanks indeed
KevI will sort out minutes, but not tonight.
linuxwolf谢谢大家
MattJOh yes, thanks for humouring me with the late meeting :)
ralphmlinuxwolf: care to translate?
linuxwolfthank you to everyone?
linuxwolfpracticing my copy/paste Chinese (-:
ralphmMattJ: It's ok! I will now go sleep
MattJlinuxwolf, with a question mark because you're not quite sure? :)
MattJ'night ralphm :)
stpetergoes back to reviewing IRI WG issues
linuxwolfMattJ: precisely
MattJstpeter, some people get all the fun
ralphmIRItating?
linuxwolfgoes to read more JOSE drafts
stpeterenjoy :)
linuxwolfI kinda wish it was called JOES
linuxwolf(-:<
ralphmlinuxwolf: just buy some stickers
ralphmuse funky fonts
ralphm...
ralphmprofit!
linuxwolfheh
linuxwolfmaybe I can get ekr to raise a "point of order" on the WG name (-:
XMPP Council - 2011-11-09