XMPP Council - 2013-07-10

Ah. Probably need an agenda.

possibly

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

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

oh, he did submit it?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html

yup

Anything else?

I can't think of anything else

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

If I haven't expired from heat by then.

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0132.html

Possibly.

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

(But you know where I am if not)

Noted…good luck!

hi

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

hah

How warm is it. 25C?

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

Humid and pretty much no breeze. Yuck.

ugh

I'm just sitting outside

nice breeze, too

howdy

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

feels like summer. not complaining

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

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

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

Anyway.

1) Roll call

I'm here!

Present

presente

Tobias is so slow

here

here

MattJ, still not the slowest fox

:)

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

no objections

!-1

ditto

The banner is OK to keep me happy.

Tobias?

yay for heuristics

no objections

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

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

it's an interesting concept

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

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

no detection for support?

No, because they're only hints

(my current argument)

heh

Arguments can be made in favour of adding support detection

!-1

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

I always liked the idea behind AMP

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

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

That too

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

right

4) Date of next.

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

RE 2): still ok with next week

er … 4)

competing specs. FTW

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

is 2) already done?

i mean 3

I thought nobody objected.

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

Tobias didn't comment either way

Ah.

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

Tobias: Do you object?

nope

Excellent.

Good ;)

:)

Everyone OK with next week?

yeah

whatever floats your boat

yes

wfm

5) AOB?

HTTP over XMPP?

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

what do you guys think of http over xmpp uris?

But it was never approved as Experimental and given a number

No-one has objected.

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

Tobias only didn't object two hours ago :)

Nobody has objected to the actual protocol-part

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

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

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

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

Peter Waher: patience

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

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

we're a fast movin SDO

heh

:)

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

the discussion the URIs is orthogonal to the acceptance for publication

That's why I'm nagging

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

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

Peter Waher: bad planning, man :-P

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

no, since it uses both http and httpx

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

stpeter: take your time

AOAOB?

none from my side

nay

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

woot

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

who's the AD?

Richard Barnes

ahh

nice

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

heh

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

The hackfest is separate from IETF, right?

MattJ, right

it is, but at the same location

stpeter: Correct.

all righty

Then I think we're done. Thanks all.

are we done? g2g to another meeting

yay

thanks :)

stpeter: yeah. I welcome list feedback on that

thanks!

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

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

heh

stpeter: I think you scared him

perhaps :-)

I understand that fear can be healthy (-:

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