XMPP Council - 2013-04-10

ding?

or am I an hour early?

Dong

Nope

Kev is... *gasp* late

By 32 seconds

It is time.

I've poked Ralph.

Did I miss anything, or is there nothing to discuss this week?

1) Roll call.

I'm here.

presente (for once)

howdy

Here

Tobias:?

here

Assuming I didn't miss anything and there's nothing for this week again...

3) Date of next meeting.

SBTSBC WFM

Me too

wfm

And for me.

I still need to publish a few things from the inbox

But that's for next week?

4) AOB?

no, just noting my action items :-)

none from me

however, the last call for XEP-0152 finished

so I suppose the Council can vote on it at some point

Did we have a sum total of no feedback on that one, or do I misremember?

same for 288

there was pre-LC feedback on 152

from Lance, at least, IIRC

Fippo's comment on 288 suggested that there were (probably minor) changes still to come on that.

and feedback from Zash on 288

I've poked Fippo to see if 288 changes are coming.

I will review 288 this week

I'll try to dig out the feedback on 152, I didn't notice it.

nod

that's it from me

I've noted adding 288 and 152 to next Council.

thanks!

I think we're done then.

Thanks all

grazie

Do you have to?

Can't we just, you know... leave it as it is? :P

:P

I guess we need something to keep our mailing lists active

heh

hey, it has been in use since ~October 2000 and was in a Proposed Standard RFC, I think it deserves to be something other than an Experimental XEP :P

you could always propose an alternative (-:

'backdial

fwdcall?

er…callfwd

so..AOB section done?

Meeting done.

7 minutes ago.

wb Tobias :)

ahh..overread that line

MattJ, been there all the time...physically

But mentally...?

menta...what?

Thought so. It's all the C++ you've been doing :)

ouch

or the couple minutes lua i squeezed in a week ago

hah, the dialback alternative will of course be turbohalibut!

don't you read xmpp@ietf.org? ;-)

fippo: uhm … no

POSH actually is turbohalibut

are you sure *you* read xmpp@ietf.org? (-:

Haha

well, POSH doesn't DER-encode, does it?

i'm pretty sure this step is crucial for turbohalibut

User exists but hasn't yet implicitly created a roster by adding anything to it. Does the roster exist or not?

i.e. does the text saying that you MUST NOT return an error, or the text saying you MUST return an error apply?

( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-2.1.4 )

Kev: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-2.1.4: RFC 6121 - Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence

Kev, in Prosody no stored data == empty stored data

so we treat it as an empty roster

Ta.

Anyone else?

Cisco products behave similarly

Merci.

for roster

btw, we also actually load the roster when the user binds their resource

and fail binding if it can't be loaded

(failure, as opposed to not existing)

This was so we don't end up overwriting it, or confusing clients into thinking they have an empty or no roster

Yes, that's quite sensible.