MattJNo objections to accepting as experimental, but I'd like more discussion :)
m&mit's an interesting concept
m&mI need to read it again, but I've no objections to going experimental
KevI have some comments on it, but not enough to block publishing.
Tobiasno detection for support?
MattJNo, because they're only hints
MattJ(my current argument)
stpeterheh
MattJArguments can be made in favour of adding support detection
ralphm!-1
MattJBut the point is, as hints, it shouldn't be the end of the world if they aren't adhered to
ralphmI always liked the idea behind AMP
KevThey're hints, and they're hints to multiple parties along the way.
TobiasMattJ, if it's only to your local server feature detection could reduce unneeded traffic...but going over s2s you'll never know if it's supported...altough the server could just strip it
MattJThat too
m&mAMP has some decent concepts, but it's execution is shoddy
ralphmright
Kev4) Date of next.
m&mreally, it should just go away until something actually useful can be made! (-:
m&mRE 2): still ok with next week
m&mer … 4)
ralphmcompeting specs. FTW
stpeterthe great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from...
Tobiasis 2) already done?
Tobiasi mean 3
KevI thought nobody objected.
ralphmI'd like to see someone enforce royalties on that phrase. or the XKCD. tired now
MattJTobias didn't comment either way
KevAh.
KevI mis-read 'no detection' as 'no objection'. Which is impressive.
KevTobias: Do you object?
Tobiasnope
KevExcellent.
MattJGood ;)
stpeter:)
KevEveryone OK with next week?
ralphmyeah
Tobiaswhatever floats your boat
m&myes
MattJwfm
Kev5) AOB?
Peter WaherHTTP over XMPP?
KevPeter Waher: We did that last week didn't we?
ralphmwhat do you guys think of http over xmpp uris?
Peter WaherBut it was never approved as Experimental and given a number
KevNo-one has objected.
stpeterI haven't caught up on much email this morning, so I haven't read Peter Waher's messages yet
KevTobias only didn't object two hours ago :)
Peter WaherNobody has objected to the actual protocol-part
Peter Waheronly the URI-part, which I responded to this morning
Kevralphm: I think that I'm not yet convinced that httpx is needed, but I could still be talked around.
ralphmPeter Waher, in general that's not what we object to for accepting as XEP
Peter Waherit would be great if it could be made Experimental and given a number
ralphmPeter Waher: patience
m&mjust having a number doesn't mean you're done
Peter WaherI'm happy to continue discussion about URI-registration until you're convinced
ralphmwe're a fast movin SDO
stpeterheh
Peter Waher:)
Peter WaherBasically I need a number, so I can refer to it in a paper using it...
ralphmthe discussion the URIs is orthogonal to the acceptance for publication
Peter WaherThat's why I'm nagging
TobiasPeter Waher, can't you refer to HTTP URLs? :)
KevIt'll be 332 won't it? :)
ralphmPeter Waher: bad planning, man :-P
stpeterI will commit to reviewing this spec in detail next week, but until next Monday evening I'll be busy updating Internet-Drafts -- I have way too many to clear out of my queue http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html
Peter Waherno, since it uses both http and httpx
KevAnyway, I think we've moved away from Councilish things here.
ralphmstpeter: take your time
KevAOAOB?
Tobiasnone from my side
ralphmnay
m&mI got a verbal notice from the AD sponsoring the XMPP WG
ralphmwoot
m&mit looks like he's good with us having the hackfest
Tobiaswho's the AD?
m&mRichard Barnes
Tobiasahh
Tobiasnice
m&mand I think he'll even show up to the hackfest (-:
ralphmheh
stpeterso in any case it sounds as if we can publish the http-over-xmpp proposal (no objections from Council members), correct? but yes we do need to also figure out the URI issue
MattJThe hackfest is separate from IETF, right?
TobiasMattJ, right
m&mit is, but at the same location
Kevstpeter: Correct.
stpeterall righty
KevThen I think we're done. Thanks all.
Tobiasare we done? g2g to another meeting
Kevbangs the gavel.
Tobiasyay
Peter Waherthanks :)
ralphmstpeter: yeah. I welcome list feedback on that
stpeterlikes it how Swift pops up toast when your nick is mentioned in a chatroom
ralphmthanks!
Peter Waherhas left
m&mhas left
Tobiashas left
m&mhas joined
m&mhas left
Tobiashas joined
m&mhas joined
Tobiashas joined
jabberjockehas left
Kevhas left
stpeterI'll wait for the minutes to be issued before publishing any new XEPs, methinks
stpeterI'm less likely to make mistakes that way :-)
ralphmheh
Kevhas joined
Kevhas left
ralphmstpeter: I think you scared him
stpeterperhaps :-)
m&mI understand that fear can be healthy (-:
ralphmas in: good for you health? Definitely. That's why it was invented. To then run.