XMPP Council - 2013-07-24

  1. m&m has left
  2. m&m has joined
  3. m&m has left
  4. m&m has joined
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. Tobias has left
  8. m&m has left
  9. m&m has joined
  10. m&m has left
  11. Kev has joined
  12. bear has left
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. MattJ has left
  16. MattJ has joined
  17. MattJ Meeting today? Do we have an agenda?
  18. Kev Yes, meeting today. I even have something for the agenda.
  19. Kev Which is that Fippo thinks the deferred 'you don't want to do this' text is too strong, so we should discuss.
  20. MattJ +1
  21. MattJ What's next? :D
  22. Kev I disagree, incidentally :)
  23. Kev But I do have a counter-proposal.
  24. Kev That's all I have for the Council meeting. I don't think there are any protoXEPs waiting.
  25. MattJ None that I know of
  26. Tobias hopefully i can produce a bit more work for the council over the next weeks :)
  27. Kev "thanks"
  28. m&m has joined
  29. Tobias has left
  30. fippo has joined
  31. Tobias has joined
  32. Tobias m&m, possible use of posh would require DNA support in the server, right?
  33. m&m it would … although DNA is a framework, not an actual protocol
  34. m&m at least for the connecting/verifying server
  35. m&m (or client)
  36. fippo tobias: well, that depends on the verifying server
  37. fippo it might be just another way to do dial-back
  38. Tobias fippo, just wondering what, most likely, will be the standard way of doing it so i can implement it as a prosody module :)
  39. fippo tobias: just try everything before actually doing <db:verify/> :-)
  40. Tobias that smells like brute force :)
  41. m&m there's not really a better way to go right now, though
  42. m&m although, there are only 3 options
  43. m&m 1) just check the PKIX (-:
  44. m&m 2) DANE/DNSSEC
  45. m&m 3) POSH
  46. fippo 4) cridlands samecert
  47. fippo 9999) <db:verify/>
  48. m&m db:verify is not a prooftype
  49. ralphm Unfortunately, I have to pick up my car from repair right about now. I cannot attend the Council meeting in time.
  50. m&m arrgh!
  51. ralphm I sent a message to the list regarding our notices above Deferred XEPs.
  52. ralphm I should be back in time for the Jingle SIG meeting.
  53. Kev ralphm: Thanks.
  54. Kev m&m: Why is db:verify not a prooftype?
  55. Kev I should rather say. I think db:verify is reasonable as a prooftype, as we'd be better off getting adoption by rolling what's actually used in, rather than trying to bootstrap based on things we've yet to manage to achieve.
  56. m&m hold on
  57. m&m the problem with treating db:verify as a prooftype (as defined in draft-ietf-xmpp-dna) is that you are bootstrapping from untrustworthy sources (DNS)
  58. m&m DNSSEC makes those sources more trustworthy, but at that point you've already confirmed the identity
  59. stpeter has joined
  60. fippo m&m: sure. but this offers an upgrade path.
  61. fippo and fwiw, I think it can be totally eliminated thanks to samecert
  62. fippo (which isn't a prooftype either)
  63. stpeter howdy
  64. stpeter brb
  65. MattJ There was something I didn't like about samecert
  66. MattJ but I can't remember what
  67. fippo mattj: it's about the same level of proof as <db:verify/>
  68. fippo just less roundtrips
  69. fippo it still has the problem that it works and therefore hides problems instead of breaking
  70. stpeter what is samecert?
  71. MattJ stpeter, instead of looking up DNS, check that the certs on the originating and the authoritative are the same
  72. Kev I assume, from the name, was the incoming stream negotiated with the same cert I get if I connect to that server.
  73. fippo http://jabber.soup.io/post/88601075/Dave-Cridland-Dialback-Now-without-dialback
  74. fippo the paragraph that starts with "My first suggestion"
  75. stpeter checks in for his flight to Berlin tomorrow
  76. fippo re berlin i might have gotten some of the free software foundation europe people interested in joining the hackfest
  77. stpeter fippo: cool
  78. Kev Right. It is time, it is time.
  79. Kev 1) Roll call.
  80. Tobias hereo
  81. Kev I am here. Ralph is not, as he is seeing to a sick car, and sent apologies just up there ^
  82. m&m presente
  83. MattJ Here
  84. Kev Righty.
  85. Kev 2) Fippo thought that the deferred text was confusing to people who don't know better, and maybe it shouldn't say that people shouldn't implement.
  86. Kev Ralph posted the following suggested text to the list:
  87. Kev The above is just one example of confusion about our standards process I've encountered recently, specifically the 'Deferred' state. The current notice reads: WARNING: Consideration of this document has been *Deferred* by the XMPP Standards Foundation. Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended. I propose the following instead: WARNING: This document has been automatically *Deferred* after 12 months of inactivity in its previous *Experimental* state. Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended for production systems. However, exploratory implementations are encouraged to resume the standards process.
  88. fippo likes the text ralph sent.
  89. m&m it's a definite improvement
  90. fippo i think we had the reason for deferring it closer to that line before we moved all the changelog stuff to the end
  91. Kev I'd like a reference to XEP-0001 for each of the states, not just deferred. I thought Ralph's text was a reasonable base. I'd like to tweak further, but a definite improvement.
  92. stpeter nods
  93. Kev Actually, I'm not sure how much I'd like to tweak it further, that text is pretty good.
  94. Kev I think we could reasonably wordsmith Experimental too, in similar ways.
  95. stpeter quite possibly
  96. stpeter I haven't actually read any of that text in quite a while
  97. MattJ Yes, Ralph's text is fine
  98. Kev Anyway. Would everyone be happy with making the Ralph change + xep1 reference? (Including Peter)
  99. MattJ I was wondering about the last sentence, but I think it's ok
  100. Tobias i'm okay with ralph's text too...it sure is an improvement
  101. Kev I think the last sentence is important in purpose.
  102. m&m yes
  103. stpeter all of those informational status paragraphs ought to include links to XEP-0001
  104. Kev Because 'deferred' is scary when people think it means 'retracted'.
  105. MattJ Me too, but I was thinking perhaps s/encourag/welcom/
  106. Kev or 'rejected'.
  107. MattJ But as I said, I think I've changed my mind, I like it as-is
  108. Kev I think we could make this chance and further wordsmith as time goes on.
  109. Kev s/chance/change/
  110. m&m exactly
  111. Kev fippo: And this resolves your complaint, right?
  112. fippo kev: absolutely
  113. Kev Marvellous.
  114. Kev I don't think we had anything else on the agenda, did we?
  115. Kev 3) Date of next meeting.
  116. Kev Next week's presumably going to clash clash with some other thing that's going on.
  117. m&m quite possibly
  118. Kev Week after, then?
  119. Tobias wfm
  120. stpeter heh
  121. m&m that works for me
  122. stpeter I will not be working the following week, but do feel free to have a fun meeting on the 7th
  123. Kev If Peter's not working, that probably means we're not going to have new things to talk about.
  124. Kev Assuming them popping up next week is unlikely
  125. Kev Should we skip a fortnight?
  126. m&m I'd rather not skip that long, even if there's nothing much to do
  127. Kev OK.
  128. stpeter yeah
  129. Kev Fortnight today, then.
  130. stpeter I'm just a figurehead anyway :P
  131. Kev stpeter: If you don't push protoXEPs, we have no work. Having no Council work to do appeals to me :)
  132. Kev 4) Any other business.
  133. stpeter heehee
  134. MattJ No other business, but a praise of the people (re)working on Jingle :)
  135. fippo kev: i think you might have explained your -1 on sox with your last post to jingle@
  136. MattJ Good to see the interest
  137. ralphm back
  138. stpeter I need to catch up on jinglish things before the meeting 9 minutes from now
  139. Kev fippo: As in "My post explained it" or "When I posted, I should have also explained..."?
  140. Kev ralphm: We decided to make you chief blurb-writer. That's about it.
  141. fippo kev: somewhere in between. i'd note that the sox authors actually have no intention to replace jingle though :-)
  142. Kev And yes, I'm very happy that people are working on Jingle in earnest. If only I had time to meaningfully contribute, other than snide remarks here and there.
  143. ralphm yay!
  144. Kev I think we're done?
  145. MattJ +1
  146. Kev Thanks all.
  147. Kev bangs the gavel.
  148. Tobias thank you
  149. ralphm Thanks!
  150. ralphm that was pretty efficient :-D
  151. Kev fippo: That may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to the rest of (me) where SoX fits into a world where it improves interop rather than harming it.
  152. Kev fippo: And my -1 was provisional until the Jingle SIG produce a coherent argument about where all these things fit, rather than a blanket -1.
  153. ralphm with that, any other comments welcome in 5 minutes next door
  154. bear has joined
  155. Tobias has left
  156. Zash has joined
  157. m&m has left
  158. m&m has joined
  159. Zash has left
  160. Zash has joined
  161. Zash has left
  162. Kev has left
  163. Neustradamus has left
  164. Tobias has joined
  165. m&m has left
  166. m&m has joined
  167. m&m has left