XMPP Council - 2013-05-22

hi ralphm

hola

la la la

One more minute.

I'm going to quickly wash my hands, and then will be here!

Right. I'm here.

1) Roll call.

presente

here

ping

I've poked MattJ.

And he's on his way, excellent.

and he's here

Magic.

So I think our only item for today is the one from list.

yay

2) Last call for Real Time Text?

The amount of AOLing on the list was a little distracting.

AOLing?

"Me too"

yeah

ahh

Posts just agreeing with the person above, without adding anything to the discussion.

m2

Heh

Hello. Present if anybody has questions

Anyway.

+1 to last call … and not simply to make the m2's stop!

I'm +1 to LC

I'm not opposed to LCing it.

is that somehow related to AOL corp?

Tobias: Users in the early days of AOL.

Tobias, yes

i'm +1 on the LC

ahh

+1

I think that's everyone.

I think I still owe some votes from last meeting, but are there any other voting items for this week that I've missed?

Not opposed to the previous items.

I didn't notice any other mails fly by (although having had a week off in which I genuinely didn't open my XMPP or mail client all holiday, I might be missing one).

Kev: good for you!

i've just send my remaining vote to the list

It was quite remarkable :)

heh

First time in 9 years that I've done it.

Personal and work email ignored!

Anyway.

If there's nothing else new, I think we're on to 3) Date of next.

Kev: There was http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jidprep.html that I submitted a while ago that needs to go on the docket

Lance: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jidprep.html: XEP-xxxx: JID Prep

re: Date of next meeting — next week works for me

Ah, thanks.

3) JIDPrep.

I want to, again, express my regret towards the removal of federation in Google Hangouts.

Accept?

I've, obviously, not read this as I missed the thread.

Not objecting to JIDPrep

Accept.

absolutely no objections from me

+1

OK. I'll read it and not object on list.

4) Date of next.

question?

Sure!

Peter Waher: Why is orange jam called marmalade. Also - is it AOB?

:)

Have you been able to discuss the HTTP over XMPP proposal?

Oh, have I missed another ProtoXEP?

it was last meeting … some votes pending

No, we did this last time.

Right, I think my vote is outstanding for that.

yup

Taking most of the intervening time off hasn't been ideal for getting stuff done.

I'll try and send votes tonight, else tomorrow morning for last week's.

Assuming no-one's going to shoot me for doing it on the 15th day.

thanks :)

so, I would really like to see it moved to <iq type='set'/> before publishing

So, next meeting - I /think/ I can do Wednesday, but I send tentative apologies just in case what I'm doing overruns.

otherwise, I sent comments to standards@ this morning (MDT)

Kev: noted (-:

m&m: agreed, for methods other than GET/HEAD

Kev: shall we keep the meeting as scheduled and move if necessary?

I can see a strong case being made to just use 'set' for all HTTP methods

I'm intending to be there, may as well leave it SBTSBC. I'll try to wrap up beforehande.

m&m: I can't see it, yet.

simplicity, it is technically providing information for processing, etc etc

5) AOB?

Kev yes AOB

webifying XEP-0156

What is the status for http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html?

Lance: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html?: XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding

oh, that

I'm giving a talk on the XSF and the XEP process next Wed at the London realtime thing, if anyone has suggestions (I've obviously not started it yet :))

seems to have fallen through the cracks to get out of last call

yikes

Oh. I thought we'd voted that to Draft.

me to

too

But it seems we voted it to LC 28th Nov, and then didn't touch it again.

ouch

With no feedback on the list.

hrmph

Oh.

No, there were two LCs by the look of it

in any case, this doesn't show in the tally

http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/

ralphm: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/: Twelfth Council &#8211; The XMPP Standards Foundation

So there was feeback to the first LC, but not the second.

Ta.

Good idea :)

I'll put it on the agenda next week.

that must be the longest running LC we've had

heh

AOAOB?

I'd respond, but though I'm an author I'm not sure I've implemented it anywhere...

MattJ: MAM?

Kev: Updating XEP-0156 for use from browsers

I haven't implemented MAM, Zash did

Ah.

Kev: Had a small presentation about XSF for IEEE, small presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/xsf

Peter Waher: http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/xsf: XSF - XMPP Standards Foundation

Peter Waher: Ta.

Lance: What's the Councilish action on that?

well, is it worth doing in the XSF?

Kev: what's the audience for the realtime meetup?

ralphm: No idea :D

m&m has the details. mainly is it an action for the XSF to register new Web Link entries, or is that left to the IETF Working Group

Kev: at least put some note on XSF promoting federation in there

ralphm: Oh, fun thought. Ta.

stpeter: what's required for "Expert Review" at the IETF?

m&m: it depends on the registry

in our specific case, the .well-known registry, and possibly the link relations registry

ah

m&m: I'm sure someone wants to make you a chair of some WG, for experience.

for well-known, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785

stpeter: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785: RFC 5785 - Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

heh

for link relations, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

stpeter: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988: RFC 5988 - Web Linking

we happen to know the experts ;-)

http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml and http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml

right … and a quick glance at RFC5785 seems to require an RFC

So, someone needs to write an RFC, and therefore it's not Councilish? :)

and the same for link relations

I think that settles it

Kev: it would appear to be the case

Excellent AOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOB?

It is councillish because we give general guidance towards proper venues for standardisation.

:)

:-D

Kev, none from me

no more from me, I don't think (-:

Excellent.

Let's see if we can come up with OB and overrun 30 minutes to see what happens to Kev

haha

Given what I've got going on this evening, I'll unilaterally end the meeting :p

Is RealtimeConf planned yet?

m&m: "Specification Required" != "RFC Required"

So, I think we're done!

Thanks all.

Kev: what!

Thanks

I am asking a question here

ralphm: Realtime conf discussions aren't councilish, so the discussion can happen afterwards :)

I second the call to end the official part of the meeting

tsk

I would like to have IoT session on the realtime conf

Excellent. Thanks all.

haha

a question

jabberjocke: sure!

have you looked at the http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Tech_pages/IoT_systems

Awesome. I just got an e-mail titled "Concealed Business Proposition"

jabberjocke: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Tech_pages/IoT_systems: Tech pages/IoT systems - XMPP Wiki

jabberjocke: the Realtime Conference is http://www.realtimeconf.com/ -- we will probably hold an XMPP Summit around that time

jabberjocke: I haven't looked at those pages yet

that would be good to be able to discuss our IoT things

there is now SleekXMPP implementations done

and clayster is also implementing

I'm in San Francisco contacting stanford berkley etc

to get more feedback

now he tells me

I just got back from SF

:(

ralphm: I hope your trip went well!

sorry to miss you

stpeter: very well indeed

I sent out on the lists, had a meeting yesterday at a grappa bar very nice :)

Lance: I suggest we update XEP-0156 to include the .well-known stuff -- or do you think that a separate spec is needed? I'd kind of like to define all the alternative discovery mechanisms in one place

ralphm: excellent!

stpeter: +1 on keeping it all in one document, as long as it doesn't get too big

Lance: I don't think it will

ok, then I'll add upating 156 to my list

stpeter: I doubt it

er… s/stepeter://

I doubt it'll get too big

just need some examples

when will a summit be decided?

and the definitions for new host-meta link relations

jabberjocke: probably when the Realtime Conf is decided -- but we know the people who run that ;-)

bbiaf

keep me posted would like to open up a IoT track