-
MattJ
Meeting today? Do we have an agenda?
-
Kev
Yes, meeting today. I even have something for the agenda.
-
Kev
Which is that Fippo thinks the deferred 'you don't want to do this' text is too strong, so we should discuss.
-
MattJ
+1
-
MattJ
What's next? :D
-
Kev
I disagree, incidentally :)
-
Kev
But I do have a counter-proposal.
-
Kev
That's all I have for the Council meeting. I don't think there are any protoXEPs waiting.
-
MattJ
None that I know of
-
Tobias
hopefully i can produce a bit more work for the council over the next weeks :)
-
Kev
"thanks"
-
Tobias
m&m, possible use of posh would require DNA support in the server, right?
-
m&m
it would … although DNA is a framework, not an actual protocol
-
m&m
at least for the connecting/verifying server
-
m&m
(or client)
-
fippo
tobias: well, that depends on the verifying server
-
fippo
it might be just another way to do dial-back
-
Tobias
fippo, just wondering what, most likely, will be the standard way of doing it so i can implement it as a prosody module :)
-
fippo
tobias: just try everything before actually doing <db:verify/> :-)
-
Tobias
that smells like brute force :)
-
m&m
there's not really a better way to go right now, though
-
m&m
although, there are only 3 options
-
m&m
1) just check the PKIX (-:
-
m&m
2) DANE/DNSSEC
-
m&m
3) POSH
-
fippo
4) cridlands samecert
-
fippo
9999) <db:verify/>
-
m&m
db:verify is not a prooftype
-
ralphm
Unfortunately, I have to pick up my car from repair right about now. I cannot attend the Council meeting in time.
-
m&m
arrgh!
-
ralphm
I sent a message to the list regarding our notices above Deferred XEPs.
-
ralphm
I should be back in time for the Jingle SIG meeting.
-
Kev
ralphm: Thanks.
-
Kev
m&m: Why is db:verify not a prooftype?
-
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.
-
m&m
hold on
-
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)
-
m&m
DNSSEC makes those sources more trustworthy, but at that point you've already confirmed the identity
-
fippo
m&m: sure. but this offers an upgrade path.
-
fippo
and fwiw, I think it can be totally eliminated thanks to samecert
-
fippo
(which isn't a prooftype either)
-
stpeter
howdy
-
stpeter
brb
-
MattJ
There was something I didn't like about samecert
-
MattJ
but I can't remember what
-
fippo
mattj: it's about the same level of proof as <db:verify/>
-
fippo
just less roundtrips
-
fippo
it still has the problem that it works and therefore hides problems instead of breaking
-
stpeter
what is samecert?
-
MattJ
stpeter, instead of looking up DNS, check that the certs on the originating and the authoritative are the same
-
Kev
I assume, from the name, was the incoming stream negotiated with the same cert I get if I connect to that server.
-
fippo
http://jabber.soup.io/post/88601075/Dave-Cridland-Dialback-Now-without-dialback
-
fippo
the paragraph that starts with "My first suggestion"
- stpeter checks in for his flight to Berlin tomorrow
-
fippo
re berlin i might have gotten some of the free software foundation europe people interested in joining the hackfest
-
stpeter
fippo: cool
-
Kev
Right. It is time, it is time.
-
Kev
1) Roll call.
-
Tobias
hereo
-
Kev
I am here. Ralph is not, as he is seeing to a sick car, and sent apologies just up there ^
-
m&m
presente
-
MattJ
Here
-
Kev
Righty.
-
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.
-
Kev
Ralph posted the following suggested text to the list:
-
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.
- fippo likes the text ralph sent.
-
m&m
it's a definite improvement
-
fippo
i think we had the reason for deferring it closer to that line before we moved all the changelog stuff to the end
-
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.
- stpeter nods
-
Kev
Actually, I'm not sure how much I'd like to tweak it further, that text is pretty good.
-
Kev
I think we could reasonably wordsmith Experimental too, in similar ways.
-
stpeter
quite possibly
-
stpeter
I haven't actually read any of that text in quite a while
-
MattJ
Yes, Ralph's text is fine
-
Kev
Anyway. Would everyone be happy with making the Ralph change + xep1 reference? (Including Peter)
-
MattJ
I was wondering about the last sentence, but I think it's ok
-
Tobias
i'm okay with ralph's text too...it sure is an improvement
-
Kev
I think the last sentence is important in purpose.
-
m&m
yes
-
stpeter
all of those informational status paragraphs ought to include links to XEP-0001
-
Kev
Because 'deferred' is scary when people think it means 'retracted'.
-
MattJ
Me too, but I was thinking perhaps s/encourag/welcom/
-
Kev
or 'rejected'.
-
MattJ
But as I said, I think I've changed my mind, I like it as-is
-
Kev
I think we could make this chance and further wordsmith as time goes on.
-
Kev
s/chance/change/
-
m&m
exactly
-
Kev
fippo: And this resolves your complaint, right?
-
fippo
kev: absolutely
-
Kev
Marvellous.
-
Kev
I don't think we had anything else on the agenda, did we?
-
Kev
3) Date of next meeting.
-
Kev
Next week's presumably going to clash clash with some other thing that's going on.
-
m&m
quite possibly
-
Kev
Week after, then?
-
Tobias
wfm
-
stpeter
heh
-
m&m
that works for me
-
stpeter
I will not be working the following week, but do feel free to have a fun meeting on the 7th
-
Kev
If Peter's not working, that probably means we're not going to have new things to talk about.
-
Kev
Assuming them popping up next week is unlikely
-
Kev
Should we skip a fortnight?
-
m&m
I'd rather not skip that long, even if there's nothing much to do
-
Kev
OK.
-
stpeter
yeah
-
Kev
Fortnight today, then.
-
stpeter
I'm just a figurehead anyway :P
-
Kev
stpeter: If you don't push protoXEPs, we have no work. Having no Council work to do appeals to me :)
-
Kev
4) Any other business.
-
stpeter
heehee
-
MattJ
No other business, but a praise of the people (re)working on Jingle :)
-
fippo
kev: i think you might have explained your -1 on sox with your last post to jingle@
-
MattJ
Good to see the interest
-
ralphm
back
-
stpeter
I need to catch up on jinglish things before the meeting 9 minutes from now
-
Kev
fippo: As in "My post explained it" or "When I posted, I should have also explained..."?
-
Kev
ralphm: We decided to make you chief blurb-writer. That's about it.
-
fippo
kev: somewhere in between. i'd note that the sox authors actually have no intention to replace jingle though :-)
-
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.
-
ralphm
yay!
-
Kev
I think we're done?
-
MattJ
+1
-
Kev
Thanks all.
- Kev bangs the gavel.
-
Tobias
thank you
-
ralphm
Thanks!
-
ralphm
that was pretty efficient :-D
-
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.
-
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.
-
ralphm
with that, any other comments welcome in 5 minutes next door