XMPP Council - 2012-11-28

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.

when is the meeting anyway? and what's on the agenda?

1600UTC http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html

howdy

hi

sorry about not adding this meeting to the calendar

I've poked Matt.

stpeter: I don't think we've needed it this week.

Hello council people

Assuming Matt's coming out of autoaway when I poked him wasn't a lie.

Afternoon Ralph.

ok

Hoorah. Bang on time.

1) Roll call.

I'm here.

presente

Present

And Ralph was here a moment ago, so I assume still is.

2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fis.html

Accept as XEP?

I have reservations about this.

which are?

I'm all ears

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.

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.

Well, for publishing, only the URI thing is an issue. Which I was also just about to mention.

I know I did not have time to read it

hi Jef!

hello

Hi.

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.

ok, so the MUC part needs work

I don't understand entirely the motivation for not referring to 135.

It is 135 I mean, isn't it?

Kev, the file sharing one?

referring or reusing?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0135.html

I also want to point out XEP-0055 (Jabber Search)

It seems that reusing disco like 135 did would be appropriate.

Oh, yes, it uses 55, too, in an inappropriate way, I remember that now :)

(Adding new elements in the jabber:iq:search namespace)

how is it inappropriate? can it be fixed?

Jef: the idea is that you use Forms for extending

aaah, I thought that could be done, for the xep

either the presets, or a form, not both

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.

about the MUC part, I'm not clear exactly what needs to be addressed

and it's not actually returning search results

m&m, how come?

at least one of your examples is not

hrm

or maybe I'm blind this morning

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?

I'm not in favour pre-cleanup, but won't block if everyone else is.

the namespace needs to be fixed for sure

right...that collides with the mam xep, right?

Jef: How would you feel about us giving feedback on list, addressing that and resubmitting in a couple of weeks?

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?

I'm fine for publishing after the namespace thing is fixed

Kev, I would like to have clear up the XEP-135 issue

The rest I'm confident can be cleaned up

ralphm: I'm saying it's not clear to me why it couldn't, which isn't at all the same thing :)

Kev: fair enough

MattJ: So you're -1 until the namespace is fixed?

I'm trying to parse that :)

Yes

Does it make sense for Jef to address the two namespace issues (and any of the others he has time for) and then resubmit?

wfm

ditto

Jef: You happy with that?

ralphm / m&m?

only if the council feels that xep-135 is correctly replaced by this need xep

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)

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.

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

-1 until the namespace, and an explanation of how −135 falls down

Obviously if the issues are minor, fixing/extending the existing is an option

right

competing specifications I don't mind. But I'd like to know at least why.

exactly

it's hard to call XEP-0135 competition given how long ago it was draft and never updated since :)

s/draft/drafted/

stpeter: It's trying to achieve the same thing, though, isn't it?

Or if it's not, I don't understand it.

it is

I'm not saying WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS, IT MUST BE 135.

I'd just like to know what it's addressing that 135 didn't.

stpeter: an reason could be 'it is old and does too much'

but 135 was just an idea that we floated and never pursued

there's just no justification at all

search, is not address in 135

anyway, I was jammed up yesterday and haven't looked at Jef's document yet, so I can't speak substantively

See, we're getting somewhere

Ahhar. OK.

:-)

Jef: I am confident you can make light edits and have it pass with flying colors next week.

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.

right

sounds like a plan

xD great, I will need a lot feedback for that

look forward to the next version, then

Fab, thanks.

3) Date of next meeting.

I believe I'm OK for next week, but not the following.

Next week wfm

Thanks.

wfm

I'm good until 12/26

I will be deep in Cisco meetings next week, but might be able to join

I'm not really good from a fortnight today until the new year, but I can probably manage everything other than a fortnight today.

In any case, I can do next week, so let's do that.

ok

stpeter: OK.

4) AOB?

let's do next week, and maybe call a year-end break

nothing from me

none here

Not here

maybe I can complete a draft of hats in time for next week's discussion :)

Fab, I think we're done then, with 5 minutes to spare before Board :)

Yay

Thanks all.

Thanks Kev

gracias

hooray

ah, I see that we need a Last Call on 297, too

Yes please.

on the way :)

Diolch.