XMPP Council - 2013-07-03

  1. Kev

    Ralph: Thanks.

  2. Kev

    Reminding everyone that we're starting 10mins later today (and limiting ourselves to 20mins).

  3. ralphm waves

  4. m&m

    T - 6 minutes?

  5. ralphm


  6. m&m

    hmm … the XSF calendar doesn't reflect it

  7. stpeter

    no, I didn't update the calendar

  8. stpeter


  9. Kev

    T - 4 minutes.

  10. Kev

    It is time.

  11. Kev

    1) Roll call

  12. Kev

    I'm here!

  13. stpeter

    Harpier cries, 'tis time, 'tis time!

  14. m&m


  15. ralphm


  16. MattJ

    I'm here

  17. Kev

    I can't see a Tobias to poke.

  18. m&m

    we still have quorum

  19. Kev

    We have.

  20. Kev

    2) HTTP over XMPP.

  21. Kev

    I didn't catch up on this (RTT took me a while!) will vote on list.

  22. ralphm

    No objections.

  23. MattJ

    No objection here either

  24. MattJ

    But I'm waiting for UPnP over XMPP

  25. m&m

    I've no objections to Experimental

  26. Kev


  27. Kev

    3) Chat Markers Discuss Kev's concerns

  28. ralphm

    MattJ: I'm pretty sure I remember people doing exactly that.

  29. Kev

    So, I wanted to discuss this because I'm surprised that everyone else is OK with it :)

  30. MattJ

    I'm not, I'm rather behind on the new stuff

  31. Kev

    MattJ: You've 'no objectioned it', I thought?

  32. MattJ


  33. Kev


  34. MattJ loads a previous week's brain dump

  35. Kev

    It seems to me that the current proposal is kinda broken, and that just doing what 184 does but s/delivered/read/, combined with MAM/carbons would solve the discussed issues.

  36. MattJ

    Ok, yes

  37. MattJ

    I did, and I did read the new version, I somehow forgot that

  38. Kev

    I'd like to block it on this basis, so would like everyone else who wants to publish it to tell me I'm wrong :)

  39. MattJ

    On the basis that it's in the style of XEP-0184, but doing things that 184 cannot?

  40. Kev

    MattJ: On the basis that it's doing stuff similar to 184, in a different way to 184, such that the proposed way is broken and just copy/paste of 184 wouldn't be.

  41. ralphm

    Kev: I'm not sure what you mean with 'OK with it'. I make a pretty big distinction between allowing a proposal become experimental and moving it to Draft. We have had multiple (slightly overlapping) proposals on several topics before, and I am entirely fine with that.

  42. stpeter

    Kev: as in, define 184+ which covers "read" instead of "delivered"? or augment existing 184 to add "read">

  43. Kev

    It's not the overlappingness that bothers me with this one, it's that it's broken.

  44. MattJ

    Oh, right - you have a point... in that if we mandate Carbons+MAM as part of the solution, XEP-0184 can work?

  45. Kev

    stpeter: Either way. But exactly 184 syntax other than s/delivered/read/.

  46. stpeter nods to Kev

  47. MattJ

    I think there was some justification of this on the list

  48. Kev

    MattJ: 184 can work, as can s184/delivered/read/

  49. Kev

    And that these /would/ work, while the proposal doesn't.

  50. waqas

    Chat Markers is also tied to UI interaction, which is extremely rare for a XEP

  51. MattJ

    Then I guess the next step is for some more concrete proposals (even just to the list) on how XEP-0184 could be used/adapted for this purpose

  52. stpeter

    MattJ: right

  53. Kev

    Please don't say I've volunteered myself :/

  54. MattJ

    Too late :)

  55. m&m

    you're the one objecting the strongest

  56. ralphm

    So yeah, maybe this spec currently doesn't do the most desirable thing (if at all). I awarded it no objections, because of the attempt to solve a problem people are experiencing. It might very well be that indeed using XEP-0184 is better a approach combined with Carbons+MAM. This could be done either in an updated version of this spec or as modifications to XEP-0184.

  57. Kev

    True. I'm not entirely sure why everyone else isn't, which is what bothers me.

  58. Kev

    i.e. am I wrong about it being broken?

  59. m&m

    I am in the same position as Ralph

  60. stpeter

    I admit that I haven't paid close attention to the Chat Markers discussion

  61. m&m

    And I don't see this being fundamentally broken

  62. ralphm

    m&m: right

  63. m&m

    particularly the assumption that: you're always going to be sending them to a contact you're already in a chat with, and therefore will be bound to the full JID.

  64. m&m

    I think is false

  65. MattJ

    I'm in the same position as m&m and Ralph, but I do think Kev's proposal has merit, it just needs a bit more elaboration

  66. Kev

    OK, but that wasn't the fundamental brokenness. The fundamental brokenness was saying "I have seen everything up to X" - when you have no idea what was up to X.

  67. Kev

    You either need to enumerate what you've seen, or ack individually (like 184).

  68. Kev

    Otherwise you have the situation of something like

  69. ralphm

    Kev: so wouldn't it be great to have this proposal as a starting point and then has it out with the authors on the standards list?

  70. ralphm

    hash it out

  71. Kev

    <A> Man down, need evac. [gets lost] <A> And I fancy a cup of tea <B> I have seen every message up to 'cup of tea'

  72. MattJ

    Kev, but it's not designed for ensuring reliability...

  73. MattJ

    I think that's better left to other parts of the stack

  74. Kev

    MattJ: You're confirming that you have read a message.

  75. Kev

    MattJ: That's the strongest form of assertion that a stanza has been delivered.

  76. stpeter


  77. Peter Waher

    Sorry I'm late. If there are any questions/comments on the HTTP over XMPP XEP proposal, I'm happy to answer

  78. stpeter

    clearly I need to look at Chat Markers more carefully

  79. stpeter

    not that I have a vote :-)

  80. MattJ

    Kev, then it's enough to satisfy your concerns with a note in the XEP that it depends on reliable delivery?

  81. Kev

    Most people don't need that sort of assertion, and those that do would presumably be unhappy if it was unreliable.

  82. Kev

    MattJ: That it can only be used if 184 is also used for every message? That would work, but boy is it ugly.

  83. Kev

    Anyway. 3 minutes to go. I'll send objections to the list

  84. Kev

    Peter Waher: Thanks. I need to vote onlist on that.

  85. MattJ

    Great :)

  86. Kev

    4) RTT - move to Draft

  87. ralphm

    While I welcome discussion on this spec, I'd rather have this done on the standards list, with a published first spec as basis.

  88. m&m

    exactly what ralphm says

  89. Kev

    I'd like to see the current discussion resolved before we move to Draft, as normative language is involved.

  90. stpeter is always in favor of publishing stuff as Experimental

  91. stpeter

    Kev: fine with me

  92. ralphm

    Kev: above comments were still on Chat Markers

  93. Kev

    I'm in favour of publishing most stuff to Experimental, unless it's obviously broken, which I think this is.

  94. Kev

    Yes, I gathered :)

  95. Kev

    Anyone else want to express an opinion on RTT?

  96. stpeter

    so hopefully the RTT discussion can be completed soon and then the Council can have a vote

  97. ralphm

    As for RTT, I think the recent comments on the list should result in an extension of the LC phase.

  98. Kev


  99. m&m


  100. stpeter


  101. Kev


  102. Kev

    5) Date of next

  103. Kev

    Same 15:10 time, next wek?

  104. Kev


  105. stpeter

    fine here

  106. ralphm

    Should we set a new date for LC?

  107. m&m

    let's just assume that's the case

  108. MattJ


  109. stpeter

    ralphm: not needed, I think

  110. Kev


  111. ralphm

    stpeter: ok

  112. Kev

    6) AOB?

  113. ralphm

    I'm ok with this time

  114. m&m

    as long as it gets into the calendar!

  115. m&m


  116. ralphm

    I'll just show up around 15:00UTC as before

  117. ralphm

    And then wait until a chair shows up

  118. m&m

    I need my 10-minute warning bell

  119. Peter Waher

    What was the conclusion about the HTTP over XMPP proposal?

  120. stpeter

    ralphm: LC often gets "extended" -- in fact I think we have a few specs that the Council hasn't voted on yet and for which the last calls started months ago, right?

  121. stpeter checks

  122. m&m

    Peter Waher: Kevin still needs to weigh in

  123. MattJ

    Peter Waher, all accepted but Kev, who will vote on the list

  124. m&m

    which he will do on list

  125. stpeter

    oh, time for a conference call here, will check later

  126. Peter Waher


  127. MattJ

    Have fun

  128. ralphm

    As a minor side project I worked on some CSS thingies for a nice side ribbon for XEPs

  129. Kev

    ralphm: Lovely.

  130. Kev

    stpeter: Ta, bibi.

  131. m&m

    back to the official meeting — I've got no AOB

  132. Kev


  133. ralphm

    nothing else from me

  134. Kev


  135. m&m awaits to gavel to get back to JSON

  136. Kev

    I think we're done then.

  137. Kev bangs the gavel

  138. Kev

    Thanks all.

  139. MattJ

    Thanks Kev

  140. m&m


  141. ralphm


  142. ralphm

    Kev: if you decide to -1 chat markers on list, could you just send your objections to the standards list to go with it?

  143. Kev

    ralphm: Yes.

  144. ralphm


  145. ralphm

    Looks like next FOSDEM will be under a new King.

  146. ralphm