-
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.
-
Tobias
when is the meeting anyway? and what's on the agenda?
-
Kev
1600UTC http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html
-
stpeter
howdy
-
Tobias
hi
-
stpeter
sorry about not adding this meeting to the calendar
-
Kev
I've poked Matt.
-
Kev
stpeter: I don't think we've needed it this week.
-
ralphm
Hello council people
-
Kev
Assuming Matt's coming out of autoaway when I poked him wasn't a lie.
-
Kev
Afternoon Ralph.
-
ralphm
ok
-
Kev
Hoorah. Bang on time.
-
Kev
1) Roll call.
-
Kev
I'm here.
- Tobias too
-
m&m
presente
-
MattJ
Present
-
Kev
And Ralph was here a moment ago, so I assume still is.
-
Kev
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html
-
Kev
Accept as XEP?
-
Kev
I have reservations about this.
-
Tobias
which are?
-
MattJ
I'm all ears
-
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.
-
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.
- stpeter notes that it was just posted yesterday so people might not have had a chance to read it
-
ralphm
Well, for publishing, only the URI thing is an issue. Which I was also just about to mention.
-
m&m
I know I did not have time to read it
-
stpeter
hi Jef!
-
Jef
hello
-
Kev
Hi.
-
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.
-
Jef
ok, so the MUC part needs work
-
Kev
I don't understand entirely the motivation for not referring to 135.
-
Kev
It is 135 I mean, isn't it?
-
Tobias
Kev, the file sharing one?
-
Jef
referring or reusing?
-
Tobias
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0135.html
-
ralphm
I also want to point out XEP-0055 (Jabber Search)
-
Kev
It seems that reusing disco like 135 did would be appropriate.
-
Kev
Oh, yes, it uses 55, too, in an inappropriate way, I remember that now :)
-
Kev
(Adding new elements in the jabber:iq:search namespace)
-
Jef
how is it inappropriate? can it be fixed?
-
ralphm
Jef: the idea is that you use Forms for extending
-
Jef
aaah, I thought that could be done, for the xep
-
m&m
either the presets, or a form, not both
-
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.
-
Jef
about the MUC part, I'm not clear exactly what needs to be addressed
-
m&m
and it's not actually returning search results
-
Jef
m&m, how come?
-
m&m
at least one of your examples is not
-
m&m
hrm
-
m&m
or maybe I'm blind this morning
-
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?
-
Kev
I'm not in favour pre-cleanup, but won't block if everyone else is.
-
m&m
the namespace needs to be fixed for sure
-
Tobias
right...that collides with the mam xep, right?
-
Kev
Jef: How would you feel about us giving feedback on list, addressing that and resubmitting in a couple of weeks?
-
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?
-
MattJ
I'm fine for publishing after the namespace thing is fixed
-
Jef
Kev, I would like to have clear up the XEP-135 issue
-
MattJ
The rest I'm confident can be cleaned up
-
Kev
ralphm: I'm saying it's not clear to me why it couldn't, which isn't at all the same thing :)
-
ralphm
Kev: fair enough
-
Kev
MattJ: So you're -1 until the namespace is fixed?
-
Kev
I'm trying to parse that :)
-
MattJ
Yes
-
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?
-
MattJ
wfm
-
Tobias
ditto
-
Kev
Jef: You happy with that?
-
Kev
ralphm / m&m?
-
Jef
only if the council feels that xep-135 is correctly replaced by this need xep
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
m&m
-1 until the namespace, and an explanation of how −135 falls down
-
MattJ
Obviously if the issues are minor, fixing/extending the existing is an option
-
ralphm
right
-
ralphm
competing specifications I don't mind. But I'd like to know at least why.
-
m&m
exactly
-
stpeter
it's hard to call XEP-0135 competition given how long ago it was draft and never updated since :)
-
stpeter
s/draft/drafted/
-
Kev
stpeter: It's trying to achieve the same thing, though, isn't it?
-
Kev
Or if it's not, I don't understand it.
-
stpeter
it is
-
Kev
I'm not saying WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS, IT MUST BE 135.
-
Kev
I'd just like to know what it's addressing that 135 didn't.
-
ralphm
stpeter: an reason could be 'it is old and does too much'
-
stpeter
but 135 was just an idea that we floated and never pursued
-
ralphm
there's just no justification at all
-
Jef
search, is not address in 135
-
stpeter
anyway, I was jammed up yesterday and haven't looked at Jef's document yet, so I can't speak substantively
-
ralphm
See, we're getting somewhere
-
Kev
Ahhar. OK.
-
ralphm
:-)
-
ralphm
Jef: I am confident you can make light edits and have it pass with flying colors next week.
-
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.
-
ralphm
right
-
Tobias
sounds like a plan
-
Jef
xD great, I will need a lot feedback for that
-
m&m
look forward to the next version, then
-
Kev
Fab, thanks.
-
Kev
3) Date of next meeting.
-
Kev
I believe I'm OK for next week, but not the following.
- stpeter loves the word "fab"
- m&m checks calendar
-
MattJ
Next week wfm
- stpeter updates the calendar
-
Kev
Thanks.
-
Tobias
wfm
-
m&m
I'm good until 12/26
-
stpeter
I will be deep in Cisco meetings next week, but might be able to join
-
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.
-
Kev
In any case, I can do next week, so let's do that.
-
stpeter
ok
-
Kev
stpeter: OK.
-
Kev
4) AOB?
-
m&m
let's do next week, and maybe call a year-end break
-
m&m
nothing from me
-
Tobias
none here
-
MattJ
Not here
-
stpeter
maybe I can complete a draft of hats in time for next week's discussion :)
-
Kev
Fab, I think we're done then, with 5 minutes to spare before Board :)
-
MattJ
Yay
-
Kev
Thanks all.
- Kev bangs the gavel
-
MattJ
Thanks Kev
-
m&m
gracias
- stpeter publishes 1.5 of XEP-0071
-
ralphm
hooray
-
stpeter
ah, I see that we need a Last Call on 297, too
-
Kev
Yes please.
-
stpeter
on the way :)
-
Kev
Diolch.