XMPP Council - 2012-11-28

  1. m&m has joined
  2. m&m has left
  3. m&m has joined
  4. stpeter has joined
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Kev has left
  7. Neustradamus has joined
  8. m&m has left
  9. stpeter has left
  10. Tobias has left
  11. Tobias has joined
  12. Tobias has left
  13. m&m has joined
  14. Kev I'm feeling rough. I'm not intending to miss it, but if I don't make it to Council it'll be because I'll have gone to bed.
  15. Tobias has joined
  16. Tobias when is the meeting anyway? and what's on the agenda?
  17. Kev 1600UTC http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html
  18. m&m has left
  19. m&m has joined
  20. stpeter has joined
  21. stpeter howdy
  22. Tobias hi
  23. stpeter sorry about not adding this meeting to the calendar
  24. ralphm has joined
  25. Kev I've poked Matt.
  26. Kev stpeter: I don't think we've needed it this week.
  27. ralphm Hello council people
  28. Kev Assuming Matt's coming out of autoaway when I poked him wasn't a lie.
  29. Kev Afternoon Ralph.
  30. ralphm ok
  31. MattJ has joined
  32. Kev Hoorah. Bang on time.
  33. Kev 1) Roll call.
  34. Kev I'm here.
  35. Tobias too
  36. m&m presente
  37. MattJ Present
  38. Kev And Ralph was here a moment ago, so I assume still is.
  39. Kev 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html
  40. Kev Accept as XEP?
  41. Kev I have reservations about this.
  42. Tobias which are?
  43. MattJ I'm all ears
  44. Kev Various. It's using urn:xmpp:mam, and I'm not sure why. It has no discovery. It requires changes to MUC rooms and MUC rooms doing magic things. It recommends massive fetches. It has client recommendations that aren't needed for interop. The Security Considerations are a bit light or misleading.
  45. Kev The lack of discovery and MUC interactions were the biggest ones I remember - it says it'll work in MUC but doesn't have any examples explaining how.
  46. stpeter notes that it was just posted yesterday so people might not have had a chance to read it
  47. ralphm Well, for publishing, only the URI thing is an issue. Which I was also just about to mention.
  48. m&m I know I did not have time to read it
  49. Jef has joined
  50. stpeter hi Jef!
  51. Jef hello
  52. Kev Hi.
  53. Kev So I'd feel more comfortable if it had a tidy-up before accepting it, but I'm not outright vetoing it like this. It does need work.
  54. Jef ok, so the MUC part needs work
  55. Kev I don't understand entirely the motivation for not referring to 135.
  56. Kev It is 135 I mean, isn't it?
  57. Tobias Kev, the file sharing one?
  58. Jef referring or reusing?
  59. Tobias http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0135.html
  60. ralphm I also want to point out XEP-0055 (Jabber Search)
  61. Kev It seems that reusing disco like 135 did would be appropriate.
  62. Kev Oh, yes, it uses 55, too, in an inappropriate way, I remember that now :)
  63. Kev (Adding new elements in the jabber:iq:search namespace)
  64. Jef how is it inappropriate? can it be fixed?
  65. ralphm Jef: the idea is that you use Forms for extending
  66. Jef aaah, I thought that could be done, for the xep
  67. m&m either the presets, or a form, not both
  68. Kev Jef: You have examples of using forms for extending, which is the right way of doing it, but you're also introducing new non-form items, which you can't do.
  69. Jef about the MUC part, I'm not clear exactly what needs to be addressed
  70. m&m and it's not actually returning search results
  71. Jef m&m, how come?
  72. m&m at least one of your examples is not
  73. m&m hrm
  74. m&m or maybe I'm blind this morning
  75. Kev I'll do a proper review of it when my head's in better shape, and send to the list. What are people's opinions on publishing?
  76. Kev I'm not in favour pre-cleanup, but won't block if everyone else is.
  77. m&m the namespace needs to be fixed for sure
  78. Tobias right...that collides with the mam xep, right?
  79. Kev Jef: How would you feel about us giving feedback on list, addressing that and resubmitting in a couple of weeks?
  80. ralphm In any case my stance, as always, is that many of these things can be fixed. Do I understand correctly, Kev, that you're saying that XEP-0135 should be able to fill the use case, and ask why this needs another spec?
  81. MattJ I'm fine for publishing after the namespace thing is fixed
  82. Jef Kev, I would like to have clear up the XEP-135 issue
  83. MattJ The rest I'm confident can be cleaned up
  84. Kev ralphm: I'm saying it's not clear to me why it couldn't, which isn't at all the same thing :)
  85. ralphm Kev: fair enough
  86. Kev MattJ: So you're -1 until the namespace is fixed?
  87. Kev I'm trying to parse that :)
  88. MattJ Yes
  89. Kev Does it make sense for Jef to address the two namespace issues (and any of the others he has time for) and then resubmit?
  90. MattJ wfm
  91. Tobias ditto
  92. Kev Jef: You happy with that?
  93. Kev ralphm / m&m?
  94. Jef only if the council feels that xep-135 is correctly replaced by this need xep
  95. MattJ Jef, having experimental XEPs for the same thing as existing XEPs is nothing new, if they're intending to solve issues with the existing one(s)
  96. Kev I'd like to know what it is that this XEP is trying to do that 135 doesn't - I don't remember seeing that in the proposal.
  97. ralphm Kev: I had the same feeling. I'm just wondering why the only reference to XEP-0135 is its supercession without any prose around that
  98. m&m -1 until the namespace, and an explanation of how −135 falls down
  99. MattJ Obviously if the issues are minor, fixing/extending the existing is an option
  100. ralphm right
  101. ralphm competing specifications I don't mind. But I'd like to know at least why.
  102. m&m exactly
  103. stpeter it's hard to call XEP-0135 competition given how long ago it was draft and never updated since :)
  104. stpeter s/draft/drafted/
  105. Kev stpeter: It's trying to achieve the same thing, though, isn't it?
  106. Kev Or if it's not, I don't understand it.
  107. stpeter it is
  108. Kev I'm not saying WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS, IT MUST BE 135.
  109. Kev I'd just like to know what it's addressing that 135 didn't.
  110. ralphm stpeter: an reason could be 'it is old and does too much'
  111. stpeter but 135 was just an idea that we floated and never pursued
  112. ralphm there's just no justification at all
  113. Jef search, is not address in 135
  114. stpeter anyway, I was jammed up yesterday and haven't looked at Jef's document yet, so I can't speak substantively
  115. ralphm See, we're getting somewhere
  116. Kev Ahhar. OK.
  117. ralphm :-)
  118. ralphm Jef: I am confident you can make light edits and have it pass with flying colors next week.
  119. Kev Jef: OK, so, I think we're at: 1) Fix the MAM namespace 2) Fix the search namespace 3) put a sentence in explaining why this is better than 135. Then resubmit and I think we'll accept. There are various other things that'll need looking at, but I think they can all happen post-publication.
  120. ralphm right
  121. Tobias sounds like a plan
  122. Jef xD great, I will need a lot feedback for that
  123. m&m look forward to the next version, then
  124. Kev Fab, thanks.
  125. Kev 3) Date of next meeting.
  126. Kev I believe I'm OK for next week, but not the following.
  127. stpeter loves the word "fab"
  128. m&m checks calendar
  129. MattJ Next week wfm
  130. stpeter updates the calendar
  131. Kev Thanks.
  132. Tobias wfm
  133. m&m I'm good until 12/26
  134. stpeter I will be deep in Cisco meetings next week, but might be able to join
  135. Kev I'm not really good from a fortnight today until the new year, but I can probably manage everything other than a fortnight today.
  136. Kev In any case, I can do next week, so let's do that.
  137. stpeter ok
  138. Kev stpeter: OK.
  139. Kev 4) AOB?
  140. m&m let's do next week, and maybe call a year-end break
  141. m&m nothing from me
  142. Tobias none here
  143. MattJ Not here
  144. stpeter maybe I can complete a draft of hats in time for next week's discussion :)
  145. Kev Fab, I think we're done then, with 5 minutes to spare before Board :)
  146. MattJ Yay
  147. Kev Thanks all.
  148. Kev bangs the gavel
  149. MattJ Thanks Kev
  150. m&m gracias
  151. stpeter publishes 1.5 of XEP-0071
  152. ralphm hooray
  153. stpeter ah, I see that we need a Last Call on 297, too
  154. Kev Yes please.
  155. stpeter on the way :)
  156. Kev Diolch.
  157. Tobias has joined
  158. Jef has left
  159. Tobias has joined
  160. Zash has joined
  161. Zash has left
  162. MattJ has left
  163. MattJ has joined
  164. MattJ has left
  165. Tobias has joined
  166. MattJ has joined
  167. Tobias has joined
  168. MattJ has left
  169. MattJ has joined
  170. MattJ has left
  171. MattJ has joined
  172. stpeter has left
  173. m&m has left
  174. ralphm has left
  175. ralphm has joined