XMPP Council - 2013-07-10

  1. m&m has joined

  2. m&m has left

  3. m&m has joined

  4. Tobias has left

  5. m&m has left

  6. Tobias has left

  7. Tobias has joined

  8. Kev has joined

  9. m&m has joined

  10. Kev

    Ah. Probably need an agenda.

  11. m&m


  12. Kev

    http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-processing-hints.html I think I missed this last week.

  13. Kev

    Also have a new version of chat markers to look at.

  14. m&m

    oh, he did submit it?

  15. Kev


  16. m&m


  17. Kev

    Anything else?

  18. m&m

    I can't think of anything else

  19. Kev

    Excellent. Just need to poke my head in in a couple of hours, then.

  20. Kev

    If I haven't expired from heat by then.

  21. m&m


  22. Kev


  23. Peter Waher has joined

  24. Kev

    I'm going to pop out to try to buy a fan, I hope to be back before the meeting.

  25. Kev

    (But you know where I am if not)

  26. m&m

    Noted…good luck!

  27. ralphm


  28. m&m waves

  29. Kev

    I return. Please let this help, I'm too young to melt.

  30. ralphm


  31. ralphm

    How warm is it. 25C?

  32. Kev

    It's about 25 outside, but it's about 28 in the house.

  33. Kev

    Humid and pretty much no breeze. Yuck.

  34. m&m


  35. ralphm

    I'm just sitting outside

  36. ralphm

    nice breeze, too

  37. stpeter has joined

  38. stpeter


  39. stpeter

    it sounds as if folks across the pond are experiencing a bit of hot weather, eh?

  40. ralphm

    feels like summer. not complaining

  41. m&m

    I do lament the lack of Spring we had in Denver this year

  42. Tobias

    stpeter, yeah...complaining about sun mid-july :P

  43. Kev

    I don't like bad weather like this, I want it to go back to being nice again.

  44. Kev


  45. Kev

    1) Roll call

  46. Kev

    I'm here!

  47. MattJ


  48. m&m


  49. MattJ

    Tobias is so slow

  50. Tobias


  51. ralphm


  52. Tobias

    MattJ, still not the slowest fox

  53. MattJ


  54. Kev

    2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html Accept?

  55. m&m

    no objections

  56. ralphm


  57. MattJ


  58. Kev

    The banner is OK to keep me happy.

  59. Kev


  60. Tobias

    yay for heuristics

  61. Tobias

    no objections

  62. Kev

    3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-processing-hints.html

  63. MattJ

    No objections to accepting as experimental, but I'd like more discussion :)

  64. m&m

    it's an interesting concept

  65. m&m

    I need to read it again, but I've no objections to going experimental

  66. Kev

    I have some comments on it, but not enough to block publishing.

  67. Tobias

    no detection for support?

  68. MattJ

    No, because they're only hints

  69. MattJ

    (my current argument)

  70. stpeter


  71. MattJ

    Arguments can be made in favour of adding support detection

  72. ralphm


  73. MattJ

    But the point is, as hints, it shouldn't be the end of the world if they aren't adhered to

  74. ralphm

    I always liked the idea behind AMP

  75. Kev

    They're hints, and they're hints to multiple parties along the way.

  76. Tobias

    MattJ, 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

  77. MattJ

    That too

  78. m&m

    AMP has some decent concepts, but it's execution is shoddy

  79. ralphm


  80. Kev

    4) Date of next.

  81. m&m

    really, it should just go away until something actually useful can be made! (-:

  82. m&m

    RE 2): still ok with next week

  83. m&m

    er … 4)

  84. ralphm

    competing specs. FTW

  85. stpeter

    the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from...

  86. Tobias

    is 2) already done?

  87. Tobias

    i mean 3

  88. Kev

    I thought nobody objected.

  89. ralphm

    I'd like to see someone enforce royalties on that phrase. or the XKCD. tired now

  90. MattJ

    Tobias didn't comment either way

  91. Kev


  92. Kev

    I mis-read 'no detection' as 'no objection'. Which is impressive.

  93. Kev

    Tobias: Do you object?

  94. Tobias


  95. Kev


  96. MattJ

    Good ;)

  97. stpeter


  98. Kev

    Everyone OK with next week?

  99. ralphm


  100. Tobias

    whatever floats your boat

  101. m&m


  102. MattJ


  103. Kev

    5) AOB?

  104. Peter Waher

    HTTP over XMPP?

  105. Kev

    Peter Waher: We did that last week didn't we?

  106. ralphm

    what do you guys think of http over xmpp uris?

  107. Peter Waher

    But it was never approved as Experimental and given a number

  108. Kev

    No-one has objected.

  109. stpeter

    I haven't caught up on much email this morning, so I haven't read Peter Waher's messages yet

  110. Kev

    Tobias only didn't object two hours ago :)

  111. Peter Waher

    Nobody has objected to the actual protocol-part

  112. Peter Waher

    only the URI-part, which I responded to this morning

  113. Kev

    ralphm: I think that I'm not yet convinced that httpx is needed, but I could still be talked around.

  114. ralphm

    Peter Waher, in general that's not what we object to for accepting as XEP

  115. Peter Waher

    it would be great if it could be made Experimental and given a number

  116. ralphm

    Peter Waher: patience

  117. m&m

    just having a number doesn't mean you're done

  118. Peter Waher

    I'm happy to continue discussion about URI-registration until you're convinced

  119. ralphm

    we're a fast movin SDO

  120. stpeter


  121. Peter Waher


  122. Peter Waher

    Basically I need a number, so I can refer to it in a paper using it...

  123. ralphm

    the discussion the URIs is orthogonal to the acceptance for publication

  124. Peter Waher

    That's why I'm nagging

  125. Tobias

    Peter Waher, can't you refer to HTTP URLs? :)

  126. Kev

    It'll be 332 won't it? :)

  127. ralphm

    Peter Waher: bad planning, man :-P

  128. stpeter

    I 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

  129. Peter Waher

    no, since it uses both http and httpx

  130. Kev

    Anyway, I think we've moved away from Councilish things here.

  131. ralphm

    stpeter: take your time

  132. Kev


  133. Tobias

    none from my side

  134. ralphm


  135. m&m

    I got a verbal notice from the AD sponsoring the XMPP WG

  136. ralphm


  137. m&m

    it looks like he's good with us having the hackfest

  138. Tobias

    who's the AD?

  139. m&m

    Richard Barnes

  140. Tobias


  141. Tobias


  142. m&m

    and I think he'll even show up to the hackfest (-:

  143. ralphm


  144. stpeter

    so 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

  145. MattJ

    The hackfest is separate from IETF, right?

  146. Tobias

    MattJ, right

  147. m&m

    it is, but at the same location

  148. Kev

    stpeter: Correct.

  149. stpeter

    all righty

  150. Kev

    Then I think we're done. Thanks all.

  151. Tobias

    are we done? g2g to another meeting

  152. Kev bangs the gavel.

  153. Tobias


  154. Peter Waher

    thanks :)

  155. ralphm

    stpeter: yeah. I welcome list feedback on that

  156. stpeter likes it how Swift pops up toast when your nick is mentioned in a chatroom

  157. ralphm


  158. Peter Waher has left

  159. m&m has left

  160. Tobias has left

  161. m&m has joined

  162. m&m has left

  163. Tobias has joined

  164. m&m has joined

  165. Tobias has joined

  166. jabberjocke has left

  167. Kev has left

  168. stpeter

    I'll wait for the minutes to be issued before publishing any new XEPs, methinks

  169. stpeter

    I'm less likely to make mistakes that way :-)

  170. ralphm


  171. Kev has joined

  172. Kev has left

  173. ralphm

    stpeter: I think you scared him

  174. stpeter

    perhaps :-)

  175. m&m

    I understand that fear can be healthy (-:

  176. ralphm

    as in: good for you health? Definitely. That's why it was invented. To then run.

  177. Tobias has joined

  178. m&m has left

  179. m&m has joined

  180. stpeter has left

  181. m&m has left

  182. m&m has joined

  183. m&m has left