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


  22. Tobias


  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


  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


  37. MattJ


  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


  52. Kev


  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


  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


  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


  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


  91. Tobias


  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


  101. ralphm

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

  102. m&m


  103. stpeter

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

  104. stpeter


  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


  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


  132. Tobias


  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


  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


  147. Kev

    Thanks all.

  148. Kev bangs the gavel

  149. MattJ

    Thanks Kev

  150. m&m


  151. stpeter publishes 1.5 of XEP-0071

  152. ralphm


  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


  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