XMPP Council - 2013-05-22


  1. m&m has joined

  2. m&m has left

  3. m&m has joined

  4. bear has left

  5. m&m has left

  6. m&m has joined

  7. m&m has left

  8. m&m has joined

  9. m&m has left

  10. Neustradamus has left

  11. Neustradamus has joined

  12. Tobias has joined

  13. Tobias has left

  14. Tobias has joined

  15. Tobias has left

  16. Tobias has joined

  17. Tobias has left

  18. Tobias has joined

  19. Neustradamus has left

  20. Tobias has left

  21. Tobias has joined

  22. Kev has left

  23. Kev has left

  24. m&m has joined

  25. Tobias has left

  26. Tobias has joined

  27. Kev has left

  28. ralphm has joined

  29. ralphm waves

  30. Tobias

    hi ralphm

  31. stpeter has joined

  32. m&m

    hola

  33. jabberjocke has joined

  34. Lance has joined

  35. stpeter

    la la la

  36. Kev has joined

  37. Kev

    One more minute.

  38. Kev

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

  39. Kev

    Right. I'm here.

  40. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  41. m&m

    presente

  42. Tobias

    here

  43. ralphm

    ping

  44. Kev

    I've poked MattJ.

  45. MattJ has joined

  46. Kev

    And he's on his way, excellent.

  47. MattJ

    and he's here

  48. Kev

    Magic.

  49. Kev

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

  50. Tobias

    yay

  51. Kev

    2) Last call for Real Time Text?

  52. Kev

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

  53. Peter Waher has joined

  54. Tobias

    AOLing?

  55. Kev

    "Me too"

  56. m&m

    yeah

  57. Tobias

    ahh

  58. Kev

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

  59. stpeter

    m2

  60. MattJ

    Heh

  61. Peter Waher

    Hello. Present if anybody has questions

  62. Kev

    Anyway.

  63. m&m

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

  64. MattJ

    I'm +1 to LC

  65. Kev

    I'm not opposed to LCing it.

  66. Tobias

    is that somehow related to AOL corp?

  67. Kev

    Tobias: Users in the early days of AOL.

  68. MattJ

    Tobias, yes

  69. Tobias

    i'm +1 on the LC

  70. Tobias

    ahh

  71. ralphm

    +1

  72. Kev

    I think that's everyone.

  73. Kev

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

  74. ralphm

    Not opposed to the previous items.

  75. Kev

    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).

  76. stpeter

    Kev: good for you!

  77. Tobias

    i've just send my remaining vote to the list

  78. Kev

    It was quite remarkable :)

  79. stpeter

    heh

  80. Kev

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

  81. Kev

    Personal and work email ignored!

  82. Kev

    Anyway.

  83. Kev

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

  84. Lance

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

  85. Kanchil

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

  86. m&m

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

  87. Kev

    Ah, thanks.

  88. Kev

    3) JIDPrep.

  89. ralphm

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

  90. Kev

    Accept?

  91. Kev

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

  92. ralphm

    Not objecting to JIDPrep

  93. MattJ

    Accept.

  94. m&m

    absolutely no objections from me

  95. Tobias

    +1

  96. Kev

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

  97. Kev

    4) Date of next.

  98. Peter Waher

    question?

  99. ralphm

    Sure!

  100. Kev

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

  101. Peter Waher

    :)

  102. Peter Waher

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

  103. Kev

    Oh, have I missed another ProtoXEP?

  104. m&m

    it was last meeting … some votes pending

  105. Kev

    No, we did this last time.

  106. Kev

    Right, I think my vote is outstanding for that.

  107. Tobias

    yup

  108. Kev

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

  109. Kev

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

  110. Kev

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

  111. Peter Waher

    thanks :)

  112. m&m

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

  113. Kev

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

  114. m&m

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

  115. m&m

    Kev: noted (-:

  116. ralphm

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

  117. stpeter

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

  118. m&m

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

  119. Kev

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

  120. ralphm

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

  121. m&m

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

  122. Kev

    5) AOB?

  123. Lance

    Kev yes AOB

  124. m&m

    webifying XEP-0156

  125. Lance

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

  126. Kanchil

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

  127. m&m

    oh, that

  128. Kev

    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 :))

  129. Lance

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

  130. m&m

    yikes

  131. Kev

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

  132. m&m

    me to

  133. m&m

    too

  134. Kev

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

  135. m&m

    ouch

  136. Kev

    With no feedback on the list.

  137. stpeter

    hrmph

  138. Kev

    Oh.

  139. Kev

    No, there were two LCs by the look of it

  140. Lance adds task to write feedback emails

  141. ralphm

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

  142. ralphm

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

  143. Kanchil

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

  144. Kev

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

  145. m&m adds .todo to respond to LC

  146. Kev

    Ta.

  147. MattJ

    Good idea :)

  148. Kev

    I'll put it on the agenda next week.

  149. ralphm

    that must be the longest running LC we've had

  150. Tobias

    heh

  151. Kev

    AOAOB?

  152. MattJ

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

  153. Kev

    MattJ: MAM?

  154. Lance

    Kev: Updating XEP-0156 for use from browsers

  155. MattJ

    I haven't implemented MAM, Zash did

  156. Kev

    Ah.

  157. Peter Waher

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

  158. Kanchil

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

  159. Kev

    Peter Waher: Ta.

  160. Kev

    Lance: What's the Councilish action on that?

  161. m&m

    well, is it worth doing in the XSF?

  162. ralphm

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

  163. Kev

    ralphm: No idea :D

  164. Lance

    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

  165. ralphm

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

  166. Kev

    ralphm: Oh, fun thought. Ta.

  167. m&m

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

  168. stpeter

    m&m: it depends on the registry

  169. m&m really ought to learn this stuff himself

  170. m&m

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

  171. stpeter

    ah

  172. ralphm

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

  173. stpeter

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

  174. Kanchil

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

  175. m&m

    heh

  176. stpeter

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

  177. Kanchil

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

  178. stpeter

    we happen to know the experts ;-)

  179. stpeter

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

  180. m&m

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

  181. Kev

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

  182. m&m

    and the same for link relations

  183. m&m

    I think that settles it

  184. m&m

    Kev: it would appear to be the case

  185. Kev

    Excellent AOAOAOAOAOAOAOAOB?

  186. ralphm

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

  187. stpeter

    :)

  188. ralphm

    :-D

  189. Tobias

    Kev, none from me

  190. m&m

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

  191. Kev

    Excellent.

  192. MattJ

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

  193. m&m

    haha

  194. Kev

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

  195. ralphm

    Is RealtimeConf planned yet?

  196. stpeter

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

  197. Kev

    So, I think we're done!

  198. Kev

    Thanks all.

  199. ralphm

    Kev: what!

  200. MattJ

    Thanks

  201. ralphm

    I am asking a question here

  202. Kev

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

  203. stpeter

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

  204. ralphm

    tsk

  205. jabberjocke

    I would like to have IoT session on the realtime conf

  206. Lance has joined

  207. Kev

    Excellent. Thanks all.

  208. Kev bangs the gavel.

  209. m&m

    haha

  210. jabberjocke

    a question

  211. stpeter

    jabberjocke: sure!

  212. jabberjocke

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

  213. ralphm

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

  214. Kanchil

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

  215. Lance has left

  216. Lance has joined

  217. stpeter

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

  218. stpeter

    jabberjocke: I haven't looked at those pages yet

  219. jabberjocke

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

  220. jabberjocke

    there is now SleekXMPP implementations done

  221. jabberjocke

    and clayster is also implementing

  222. jabberjocke

    I'm in San Francisco contacting stanford berkley etc

  223. jabberjocke

    to get more feedback

  224. ralphm

    now he tells me

  225. ralphm

    I just got back from SF

  226. jabberjocke

    :(

  227. stpeter

    ralphm: I hope your trip went well!

  228. jabberjocke

    sorry to miss you

  229. ralphm

    stpeter: very well indeed

  230. jabberjocke

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

  231. stpeter

    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

  232. stpeter

    ralphm: excellent!

  233. Lance

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

  234. stpeter

    Lance: I don't think it will

  235. Lance

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

  236. m&m

    stpeter: I doubt it

  237. m&m

    er… s/stepeter://

  238. m&m

    I doubt it'll get too big

  239. m&m

    just need some examples

  240. jabberjocke

    when will a summit be decided?

  241. m&m

    and the definitions for new host-meta link relations

  242. stpeter

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

  243. stpeter

    bbiaf

  244. jabberjocke

    keep me posted would like to open up a IoT track

  245. Peter Waher has left

  246. Zash has joined

  247. stpeter has left

  248. stpeter has joined

  249. Tobias has joined

  250. Lance has joined

  251. Lance has joined

  252. Neustradamus has joined

  253. bear has joined

  254. Lance has joined

  255. ralphm has left

  256. ralphm has joined

  257. Lance has joined

  258. stpeter has left

  259. Tobias has left

  260. Tobias has joined

  261. ralphm has left

  262. Zash has left

  263. m&m has left

  264. m&m has joined

  265. m&m has left