XMPP Council - 2012-01-25

Thanks.

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

Hello Fans!

Howdy.

1minute to ...

No minutes to go.

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

hi

Right.

1) Roll call

IIIIIII'm here.

presente

aha

??

for PM pokage when you were already here :)

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

hehe

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

Kev: that

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

ralphm: Possibly, although not easily, perhaps.

Kev: wait what?

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

I said only perhaps.

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

Doesn't the proposed format conflict with full jids?

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

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

and I'm loathe to add to the scheme registry

XEP-0060 examples 225-228

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

:)

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

Anyway, -1 for now.

Moooving on.

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

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

I think it's now ok to push.

oh yes, the one I screwed up by publishing

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

+1

+1 on that too

Cool. My empire expands.

:)

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

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

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

exactly

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

+1 on −0077#2.4

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

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

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

a lot do advertise

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

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

ralphm: Everywhere I go is a fun place.

Almost by definition. Just not necessarily for me :)

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

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

+1

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

/nod

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

Ok, all +1 on 77.

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

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

anyhoo

linuxwolf: true indeed

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

ralphm: Understood.

ralphm: right … which is kind of my point

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

I'm +1 on (5)

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

sleeping dogs left to lie

anyhow

+1 on −0114#1.6

+1 on 0114

Tobias: ?

yeah...+1

6) Date of next meeting.

(now) usual slot?

hi MattJ

Gaah, sorry, time confusal :/

heh

I have a conflict at this time next week

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

but just next week

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

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

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

MattJ: You have.

I will be in Brussels next week already

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

Just loading log now

Shall we do fortnight today?

who will not be there next week?

Kev: wfm

I will not

linuxwolf: SAD!

k

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

I'll be at the summit et al.

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

7) AOB

I'll be jet-lagged :)

Anyone?

but probably functional

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

none here

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

heh

I need to capture votes on XEP 45

and those from today

Oh. Sorry.

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

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) ...

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

+1

+1

I need to read it through one more time … sorry

+1

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 :)

will have a new vote before the next meeting

linuxwolf: Thanks.

Tobias: ?

I just sent my -1 comment to standards@

ralphm: Thanks.

Kev, kev?

yeah..ok

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

+1

Ta.

Now we're really done then, I think.

yay

w00t

I'll send minutes.

Thanks all.

woah, 22 min.

Kev: good luck with that

http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/eleventh-council/

Ta.

I wonder why 114 is Historical

because it existed before XMPP was formalised

yeah I know

but still, it's so widely used

ah well :)

Which is the exact definition of Historical :)

yeah yeah yeah

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

We'll just drink to that next week

sounds good!

(-:

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

grazie

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

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

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

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

that's something

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

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

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

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

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

It does.

OK

thanks

Thanks :)

I got thrown off because is said "ProtoXEP"

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

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

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

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

Thanks muchly.