XMPP Council - 2012-01-25

  1. stpeter sends a five minute warning via identi.ca

  2. Kev


  3. Kev

    I got caught up, forgot to send a mail to the list.

  4. stpeter nods

  5. ralphm

    Hello Fans!

  6. Kev


  7. Kev

    1minute to ...

  8. Kev

    No minutes to go.

  9. Kev

    I don't see a MattJ here or in my roster.

  10. Tobias


  11. Kev


  12. Kev

    1) Roll call

  13. Kev

    IIIIIII'm here.

  14. linuxwolf


  15. ralphm too, for a change

  16. linuxwolf gasps

  17. stpeter


  18. stpeter apologizes to linuxwolf

  19. linuxwolf


  20. stpeter

    for PM pokage when you were already here :)

  21. Kev

    2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-uri.html Accept as Experimental?

  22. linuxwolf


  23. Kev

    I'm -1 on this on the basis that Board have recommended we talk to IETF folks first.

  24. ralphm

    Kev: that

  25. ralphm

    Kev: also, I wonder if this couldn't be done within the current xmpp schema

  26. Kev

    ralphm: Possibly, although not easily, perhaps.

  27. ralphm

    Kev: wait what?

  28. ralphm

    Kev: xmpp:pubsub.ik.nu?;node=test;id=itemid

  29. Kev

    I said only perhaps.

  30. Kev

    I'm aware there are simple cases for which it's blindingly obvious how to do it :)

  31. Zash

    Doesn't the proposed format conflict with full jids?

  32. ralphm

    oh, it's 'item', not 'id'

  33. stpeter

    I tend to agree with Ralph -- we have a way to do this using the existing scheme

  34. linuxwolf

    and I'm loathe to add to the scheme registry

  35. ralphm

    XEP-0060 examples 225-228

  36. Kev

    Zash: I don't remember, I read it yesterday, I've forgotten it by now.

  37. Zash


  38. Kev

    Oh, yes, I remember being unclear whether it'd end up with legal URIs or not.

  39. Kev

    Anyway, -1 for now.

  40. Kev

    Moooving on.

  41. Kev

    3) http://doomsong.co.uk/extensions/render/xep-0311.html Accept as Experimental?

  42. Kev

    I updated the not-quite-a-XEP-0311 so it doesn't now say "and here I stopped writing".

  43. Kev

    I think it's now ok to push.

  44. stpeter

    oh yes, the one I screwed up by publishing

  45. linuxwolf

    I've no objections to publishing as now-actually-311

  46. ralphm


  47. Tobias

    +1 on that too

  48. Kev

    Cool. My empire expands.

  49. stpeter


  50. Kev

    4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0077-2.4.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0077/diff/2.3/vs/2.4rc1

  51. Kev

    This just adds a disco identity, I think, which I'm fine with.

  52. ralphm

    Kev: maybe you can occupy Brussels and make it a fun place :-P

  53. linuxwolf


  54. Kev

    It doesn't address questions of what advertising that entity *means*.

  55. linuxwolf

    +1 on −0077#2.4

  56. Tobias

    yeah..+1 on that change too.. a lot services do it that way anyway already

  57. Kev

    (i.e. M-Link would advertise it because it allows password changing, but it doesn't allow open registration)

  58. Kev

    (In fact, I think M-Link *does* advertise, although I might misremember)

  59. linuxwolf

    a lot do advertise

  60. stpeter

    Kev: right, if you support that protocol in any way, you can advertise the feature

  61. Kev

    I think for Peter's use case, which is finding if it supports registration, the stream feature is the way to go, FWIW.

  62. Kev

    ralphm: Everywhere I go is a fun place.

  63. Kev

    Almost by definition. Just not necessarily for me :)

  64. Kev

    Anyway, who're we missing? Ralph, I think we need your +-[01] still.

  65. ralphm

    Whereas for things other than IM servers, it means different every time. I'd say it just advertises understanding the protocol, nothing more.

  66. ralphm


  67. stpeter

    well, the server directory use case has other means of figuring out whether another server supports IBR, but I still think we need a way to discover jabber:iq:register support in any case

  68. linuxwolf


  69. Kev

    stpeter: Yes, although mostly for password changing, I think.

  70. Kev

    Ok, all +1 on 77.

  71. Kev

    5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0114-1.6.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0114/diff/1.5/vs/1.6rc1

  72. linuxwolf

    I'd rather do a new protocol than try to fix more of −0077 for those "what does support mean"

  73. linuxwolf


  74. stpeter

    linuxwolf: true indeed

  75. ralphm

    my comment was mostly about things like MUC and pubsub services and gateways that also support this namespace

  76. Kev hands linuxwolf a tinopener and a can labeled "not worms, honest guv".

  77. Kev

    ralphm: Understood.

  78. linuxwolf

    ralphm: right … which is kind of my point

  79. linuxwolf

    and which I now realize I shouldn't have said anything (-:

  80. Kev

    I'm +1 on (5)

  81. ralphm

    I think disco rarely explains exactly what a 'feature' means. It just says 'I support this protocol'

  82. linuxwolf

    sleeping dogs left to lie

  83. linuxwolf


  84. linuxwolf

    +1 on −0114#1.6

  85. Kev pokes MattJ

  86. ralphm

    +1 on 0114

  87. Zash pokes MattJ

  88. Kev

    Tobias: ?

  89. Tobias


  90. Kev

    6) Date of next meeting.

  91. Kev

    (now) usual slot?

  92. Tobias

    hi MattJ

  93. MattJ

    Gaah, sorry, time confusal :/

  94. stpeter


  95. linuxwolf

    I have a conflict at this time next week

  96. stpeter

    I've never seen the word "confusal" before, I like it!

  97. linuxwolf

    but just next week

  98. Kev

    See if you can backlog skim and vote before we decide on date and AOB.

  99. MattJ

    Do I still have time to reject MFR again? :P

  100. Kev

    linuxwolf: Next week is bad for me anyway, so I'm happy to skip.

  101. Kev

    MattJ: You have.

  102. ralphm

    I will be in Brussels next week already

  103. MattJ

    Well I'm +1 on it, you'll be glad to know

  104. MattJ

    Just loading log now

  105. Kev

    Shall we do fortnight today?

  106. ralphm

    who will not be there next week?

  107. linuxwolf

    Kev: wfm

  108. linuxwolf

    I will not

  109. ralphm

    linuxwolf: SAD!

  110. Tobias


  111. linuxwolf

    too much traveling at the end of last year … still recovering

  112. Kev

    I'll be at the summit et al.

  113. Kev

    I'll take that as a +1 from everyone on this time in a fortnight.

  114. Kev

    7) AOB

  115. stpeter

    I'll be jet-lagged :)

  116. Kev


  117. stpeter

    but probably functional

  118. linuxwolf

    "silence is acquiescence" is what I always say (-:

  119. linuxwolf

    none here

  120. Kev

    I'll be trainlagged, but I'll probably cope :)

  121. stpeter


  122. stpeter

    I need to capture votes on XEP 45

  123. stpeter

    and those from today

  124. Kev

    Oh. Sorry.

  125. Kev

    I said I'd add it to agendaness and didn.t

  126. MattJ

    1) present, 2) -1 (afaik this is already possible with the current scheme), 3) +1 (thanks Kev), 4) +1 (Prosody already does this iirc), 5) +1 (and this), 6) +1, 7) ...

  127. Kev

    5b) Everyone ok on the new version of MUC now?

  128. Kev


  129. MattJ


  130. linuxwolf

    I need to read it through one more time … sorry

  131. ralphm


  132. stpeter

    in fact http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ is the last voting page, so I need to create one for the eleventh council :)

  133. linuxwolf

    will have a new vote before the next meeting

  134. Kev

    linuxwolf: Thanks.

  135. Kev

    Tobias: ?

  136. ralphm

    I just sent my -1 comment to standards@

  137. Kev

    ralphm: Thanks.

  138. Tobias

    Kev, kev?

  139. Tobias


  140. Kev

    "5b) Everyone ok on the new version of MUC now?"

  141. Tobias


  142. Kev


  143. Kev

    Now we're really done then, I think.

  144. Tobias


  145. linuxwolf


  146. Kev

    I'll send minutes.

  147. linuxwolf goes back to e2e

  148. Kev

    Thanks all.

  149. ralphm

    woah, 22 min.

  150. Kev bangs gavel order go words out the so the of

  151. ralphm

    Kev: good luck with that

  152. stpeter


  153. Kev


  154. stpeter double-checks the voting record

  155. stpeter

    I wonder why 114 is Historical

  156. ralphm

    because it existed before XMPP was formalised

  157. stpeter

    yeah I know

  158. stpeter

    but still, it's so widely used

  159. stpeter

    ah well :)

  160. Kev

    Which is the exact definition of Historical :)

  161. stpeter

    yeah yeah yeah

  162. stpeter

    I'm sure it's my fault for writing XEP #1 :)

  163. ralphm

    We'll just drink to that next week

  164. stpeter

    sounds good!

  165. linuxwolf


  166. stpeter

    OK, http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/eleventh-council/ is up to date

  167. linuxwolf


  168. stpeter

    you know, I'm looking forward to our advancing XEP-0045 to Final :)

  169. Kev

    We may have a way to go for that...

  170. Kev

    My recent review was, largely, only of your proposed changes for the new version, not a complete readthrough, for one thing :)

  171. stpeter

    well, my proposed changes were the result a complete readthrough :)

  172. stpeter

    that's something

  173. stpeter

    it did advance to Draft on 2002-11-21 ;-)

  174. stpeter

    Kev: did you check your changes to 311 into git? I'm probably not looking in the right branch :)

  175. Kev

    I *thought* I'd pushed them up to master.

  176. stpeter checks

  177. Kev

    My local repo tells me I've no uncommitted changes, and no commits that haven't been pushed.

  178. stpeter

    does http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0311/diff/0.0.1/vs/0.1 look right to you?

  179. Kev

    It does.

  180. stpeter


  181. stpeter


  182. Kev

    Thanks :)

  183. stpeter

    I got thrown off because is said "ProtoXEP"

  184. stpeter

    thanks to Tobias as always for his work on the diff tool!

  185. stpeter fixes the status

  186. Tobias

    still suboptimal i think...changed numbering (footnotes and stuff) etc. aren't that interesting

  187. Kev

    I think having a diff of everything that changed is useful.

  188. stpeter

    http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0311.html updated

  189. Kev

    Thanks muchly.