XMPP Council - 2013-08-28


  1. Tobias

    meeting today?

  2. Kev

    Yes.

  3. Tobias

    k

  4. Kev

    Agenda is all of the stuck-at-proposed XEPs, plus your patch.

  5. Tobias

    ahh

  6. Kev

    I fear I'll have reviewed none of it and have to vote on list.

  7. Kev

    Especially the 301 changes. Has anyone other than me reviewed that properly?

  8. Tobias

    haven't yet..but can do so till next week

  9. Tobias

    if that's still worth anything

  10. Kev

    Got a fortnight to vote after today.

  11. Tobias

    ok..will do that then

  12. MattJ

    Likewise

  13. m&m

    so are we on like Donkey Kong?

  14. Tobias

    in 9 minutes i think

  15. m&m

    right

  16. ralphm

    m&m: quoting Ice Cube, huh?

  17. MattJ

    I pretend it's still 15:00

  18. maineboy

    howdy

  19. ralphm

    MattJ: me too

  20. MattJ

    Howdy maineboy

  21. maineboy is really stpeter but this is a backup backup account ;-)

  22. MattJ

    Guessed :)

  23. m&m

    I am a child of the 80's

  24. ralphm

    :-D

  25. Tobias

    maineboy, still haven't fixed your prosody instance?

  26. maineboy

    Tobias: not yet

  27. MattJ

    Yes, very strange stuff going on there...

  28. maineboy

    Tobias: I need to make that a priority, but I have so many priorities...

  29. maineboy

    MattJ: I might need to reinstall the OS ;-)

  30. Tobias

    heh

  31. maineboy

    I suppose I could at least have joined the room using my @cisco.com account to be semi-official

  32. ralphm

    maineboy: are you the real stpeter?

  33. stpeter

    ralphm: yes, just a different account

  34. ralphm

    stpeter: and how can we tell?

  35. stpeter

    right, that's the question

  36. stpeter

    I can update a page at https://stpeter.im for you or send a PGP-signed message to council@xmpp.org if you'd like :-)

  37. ralphm

    stpeter: what's the single must-visit attraction while in Brussels?

  38. stpeter

    of course, someone else could have gotten control over stpeter's machine, learned his 40+ character PGP password, and is now sending messages as him :-)

  39. Kev

    Blip.

  40. stpeter

    but I did send a PGP-signed message to council@ for you ;-)

  41. stpeter

    of course

  42. ralphm

    pfft

  43. stpeter

    how do we really know who people are?

  44. ralphm

    let's start

  45. m&m

    time

  46. ralphm

    I'm here

  47. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  48. stpeter

    identity is hard :-)

  49. Kev

    ralphm: hoorah for pipelining? :)

  50. m&m

    actually present for once

  51. MattJ

    Here

  52. Tobias

    here

  53. Kev

    I'm here!

  54. Kev

    2) Tobias did http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0082/diff/1.0/vs/1.1 ages ago. OK if we raise that one now?

  55. Kev

    Where 'now' means 'on list in the next fortnight', I imagine.

  56. Kev

    Actually, it's so short, we can just read it now.

  57. MattJ

    +1

  58. Kev

    +1

  59. MattJ

    I just read it

  60. Tobias

    +1

  61. stpeter

    ah, that's better, yes

  62. ralphm

    +1

  63. m&m

    nrm

  64. ralphm

    actually, many of my contacts appear to live in california, as all their mail comes in PDT

  65. stpeter

    PDT is the new GMT

  66. m&m

    this is better .. but I do wonder if "SHOULD covert" would be better than "are advised to convert"

  67. m&m

    but, this is a definite improvement, so I'm +1

  68. ralphm

    m&m: that would make it normative

  69. m&m

    right

  70. ralphm

    m&m: a bit too strong, I think

  71. m&m

    given it's a security concern, I don't think it's too strong

  72. Kev

    I don't think SHOULD is strictly needed, although I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter.

  73. MattJ

    Hmm

  74. Kev

    Given a full house of +1, let's publish this, and it can be further wordsmithed in 1.2 :)

  75. m&m

    exactly

  76. MattJ

    A client might want to change to a random timezone for security purposes

  77. m&m

    heh

  78. Kev

    So, on the the XEPs-stuck-at-proposed:

  79. ralphm

    MattJ: Like +0:19

  80. stpeter

    heh

  81. Kev

    3) XEP-0301: In-Band Real Time Text Move to Draft?

  82. MattJ

    Why this one first? :P

  83. Kev

    I need to go through this and check the responses to all my comments from last time.

  84. MattJ

    I'll vote on-list

  85. m&m

    same as MattJ

  86. Tobias will vote on list within a week

  87. ralphm

    AOL

  88. m&m wants to use the IST timezone

  89. Kev

    I would recommend that anyone who hasn't yet done a full review of this version schedules it early in the cycle, because I've spent man-weeks on it at this point, it's not fast.

  90. Kev

    4) XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding Draft?

  91. m&m

    right

  92. stpeter likes the reverse-numerical order

  93. m&m

    I had an outstanding comment that was not addressed … but I cannot remember where that is now

  94. Kev

    I have doubts about the authors for this one, but it seems ok despite that disadvantage.

  95. MattJ

    Story with 297... last call happened, feedback was received, and I incorporated it into a new version (0.5)

  96. MattJ

    Then Dave gave some more feedback on that version: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-June/027623.html

  97. Kev

    MattJ: OK, so that's punting this and bringing 0.5 later, OK.

  98. m&m

    maybe that's my problem … I didn't read 0.5 yet (-:

  99. Tobias

    Kev, does it have implementations?

  100. Kev

    Tobias: anyone doing MAM.

  101. Tobias

    ah..ok

  102. MattJ

    I don't know whether it should still head to draft, or wait for me to address these concerns (which I haven't fully reviewed)

  103. Kev

    MattJ: At least 0.5 should be published first :)

  104. Kev

    So we can Deal With This Later.

  105. MattJ

    It is

  106. Kev

    Hmm.

  107. ralphm

    so the author doesn't think it is ready. Cool

  108. Kev

    I see 0.4 on xmpp.org

  109. MattJ

    It isn't!

  110. stpeter

    BTW, the issue of forwarding (and max-forwards / loop prevention) came up in the STOX WG at the IETF, since SIP has loop-prevention methods in place but XMPP doesn't

  111. stpeter

    hmm, yeah, was the XEP Editor remiss about http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html ?

  112. MattJ

    stpeter, you should have stayed anonymous :)

  113. Kanchil

    stpeter: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html: XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding

  114. MattJ

    stpeter, http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-June/027620.html

  115. Kev

    Mooooving on :)

  116. stpeter

    MattJ: OK!

  117. Kev

    5) XEP-0288: Bidirectional Server-to-Server Connections

  118. Kev

    Draft?

  119. ralphm

    Kev: so is it really Rejected now?

  120. Kev

    I need to -onlist.

  121. Kev

    ralphm: Presumably so :)

  122. MattJ

    I think I'm +1, but it's been a while so I'll say on list

  123. m&m

    I will vote on list for −0288

  124. ralphm

    Kev: I'd like that, we don't have many of those

  125. Tobias

    vote on list for that too

  126. ralphm

    I have to review all the s2s stuff still

  127. Kev

    I keep wanting to do a clean-room implementation of 220 and 288, but I keep failing to find time. Which is a shame.

  128. Kev

    6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback On list.

  129. fippo

    i still have a patch for 0288 to address the feedback from zash and need to pester my co-author about the other issue raised by michal vaner. but those don't touch the substance

  130. Kev

    Or rather.

  131. Kev

    6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback

  132. ralphm

    Kev: same. I have a dial back implementation in Wokkel, but it sucks

  133. Kev

    I need to vote on-list.

  134. m&m

    Kev: same

  135. MattJ

    Is 220 still ready for draft?

  136. MattJ

    I still see lots of discussion going on

  137. stpeter

    IMHO 220 is ready for Final :P

  138. MattJ

    Heh

  139. Kev

    I did review 220 the other week, but I'll do it again.

  140. stpeter

    I still think it should've been Draft when we copied it over from a Proposed Standard RFC, but hey

  141. Kev

    stpeter: Well, I found an issue during last review :p

  142. fippo

    kev: your schema bug was fixed

  143. Kev

    fippo: Yep, ta :)

  144. stpeter

    Kev: there are issues with RFC 6120, too ;-)

  145. Kev

    Don't tell anyone.

  146. MattJ

    stpeter, when you put it that way, you're right.... what are we even discussing?

  147. Kev

    7) XEP-0152: Reachability Addresses

  148. Kev

    I will also on-list this one.

  149. stpeter

    well, I'd like to make sure it's in good shape, but perfection is not necessary for Draft status

  150. m&m

    ditto

  151. MattJ

    Kev, incomplete last call I think? Only Lance replied

  152. stpeter

    and dialback has certainly been deployed for almost 13 years now ;-)

  153. Kev

    MattJ: Ah, still?

  154. MattJ

    afaict

  155. MattJ

    m&m, did I imagine that you were using this for something?

  156. m&m

    I was using reachability?

  157. Kev

    I thought we had a protoxep to vote on, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking of dynamic forms. M&M: Did you send your objections on-list for that one?

  158. MattJ

    m&m, if not than I imagined it :)

  159. m&m

    I have not yet, but I am doing it now

  160. Kev

    OK, thanks.

  161. stpeter

    reachability addresses are relevant to any CUSAX client, but I haven't yet convinced developers of CUSAX clients at Cisco to add the feature

  162. m&m

    I can see uses for reachability, but I don't have anything concrete

  163. m&m

    and what maineboy said

  164. Kev

    I think that takes us to 9) Next meeting.

  165. MattJ

    +1

  166. Kev

    SBTSBC? We seem to just about cope with 20 minute meetings.

  167. ralphm

    stpeter: jbox

  168. stpeter

    see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-07#section-3.3

  169. Kanchil

    stpeter: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-07#section-3.3: draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-07 - CUSAX: Combined Use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)

  170. m&m

    Kev: +1 on 9)

  171. stpeter

    ralphm: hehe, I was just talking about jbox the other day with temas ;-)

  172. Kev

    stpeter: I wonder if you could get any CUSAX people to express an opinion, then?

  173. Tobias

    Kev, wfm

  174. Kev

    and item 10) Any other business?

  175. ralphm

    stpeter: how many implementations are there?

  176. stpeter

    Kev: I've also poked the Jitsi folks about it, but will do so again

  177. Kev

    Other than kicking us all out and replacing us with newer, younger versions.

  178. Peter Waher

    I have one question

  179. Kev

    Although I think that's probably not really Council business as much as Alex's.

  180. Kev

    Peter Waher: shoot.

  181. ralphm

    Kev: us roolz

  182. Peter Waher

    I received a mail from UPnP members forum, stating a cooperation between UPnP+cloud and XMPP was underfoot

  183. Peter Waher

    any information you can share?

  184. fippo

    stpeter: i might implement it if your @cisco account announces it ;-)

  185. Peter Waher

    I would be interested to participate in any such work

  186. Kev

    Peter Waher: stpeter's your man, I think.

  187. ralphm

    Peter Waher: that's nice

  188. fippo

    kev: no, he's his (maine)boy

  189. Peter Waher

    it relates to the IoT-effort we're working on

  190. Kev

    fippo: Ho ho ho.

  191. Kev

    stpeter: Weren't you involved in this?

  192. Peter Waher

    any information you could share would be appreciated

  193. stpeter

    Peter Waher: as far as I know that is not public information yet, so I haven't said anything

  194. Kev

    OK.

  195. Kev

    I guess that means we're done, then?

  196. stpeter

    Peter Waher: is there something published on their website about it?

  197. Peter Waher

    for UPnP members

  198. stpeter

    http://upnp.org/news/press_releases/ hasn't been updated yet

  199. Kanchil

    stpeter: http://upnp.org/news/press_releases/: UPnP Forum

  200. stpeter

    sure, but we're not UPnP members here

  201. stpeter

    as soon as they go public with it, I'd be happy to talk

  202. Kev

    Right, I'll take that as done for the meeting.

  203. Kev

    Thanks all!

  204. MattJ

    Thanks Kev :)

  205. Kev bangeth the gavel

  206. Tobias

    thnaks Kev

  207. Tobias

    thanks Kev

  208. Peter Waher

    ok

  209. Peter Waher

    I'll be waiting for any comments on the dynamic forms also

  210. Peter Waher

    waiting to respond

  211. Kev

    Peter Waher: Thanks.

  212. stpeter

    Council calendar updated with meetings for September

  213. stpeter

    http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html updated too

  214. Kanchil

    stpeter: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html: XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding

  215. Kev

    stpeter: Ta.

  216. m&m awaits minutes, so he can add a smorgasbord of TODOs

  217. m&m

    (-:

  218. Tobias

    stpeter, do all initials in the change history need to be listed in the authors section?

  219. m&m

    /-:

  220. stpeter

    Tobias: are you asking as a general policy matter and do you have an example?

  221. Tobias

    stpeter, xep-0082 http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0082/diff/1.0/vs/1.1 i barely added what other people suggested ;)

  222. stpeter

    ah

  223. stpeter

    hmm yes

  224. Tobias

    ok

  225. stpeter

    BTW I don't know why I'm listed as an author on XEP-0297 either ;-)

  226. Tobias

    same goes for quite a lot papers in the scientific community it seems :/

  227. stpeter

    Tobias: that's a good question — especially for XEPs that are in maintenance mode

  228. stpeter

    I've certainly fixed things in older XEPs and didn't add myself as a co-author, although usually I'm already an author on all that stuff ;-)

  229. Tobias

    right

  230. stpeter

    and sometimes we take over specifications from people who have disappeared, and the new maintainer is added as a co-author if they make some significant changes

  231. stpeter

    we might want to be clearer about our policies in such cases

  232. stpeter

    and also figure out how to do more "collective authorship" (e.g., Council members or XSF members or other help out with fixing bugs like the one in XEP-0082)

  233. maineboy

    :P

  234. Kev

    maineboy: Are your other accounts still having issues on the server?

  235. maineboy

    although Adium (which I'm using here) always shows me as "Peter Saint-Andre"

  236. maineboy

    Kev: AFAICT yes

  237. Kev

    Curious. As we had an 'automatic restart' earlier.

  238. maineboy

    but that's off-topic for this chatroom

  239. MattJ

    maineboy, you provided the schema for 297 :)

  240. maineboy

    BTW, I'll note that draft-ietf-precis-framework is now in Working Group Last Call, which means that draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis (the addressing / i18n stuff) will go to WGLC before too long, too

  241. ralphm

    maineboy: how did those tests against our stringpreps go?

  242. maineboy

    MattJ: ah, schemas are purely a mechanical exercise IMHO, just add me to the acknowledgements

  243. Kev

    maineboy: It is, but you're not my friend on that account :)

  244. maineboy

    ralphm: I have some Python code to help me check codepoint handling, but I haven't applied them directly to the XMPP cases yet

  245. ralphm

    oh

  246. maineboy

    so I need to dig into the Python again and finish that up

  247. maineboy

    also need to do some planning for the XMPP Summit

  248. ralphm

    ight

  249. ralphm

    right

  250. MattJ

    ralphm, how's FOSDEM looking?

  251. maineboy

    sigh, I have a lot of Internet-Drafts to finish up by the end of the year … http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html

  252. Kanchil

    maineboy: http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html: Peter Saint-Andre Data (all documents)

  253. maineboy

    PRECIS, STOX, 6122bis, 2141bis, 3406bis … yikes

  254. maineboy

    after that I think I'll take a break from publishing RFCs ;-)

  255. fippo

    don't forget the DNA drafts

  256. maineboy

    might not finish those this year

  257. ralphm

    MattJ: I just sent out the e-mail. Thanks for the reminder

  258. maineboy

    Matt and I are working to update the POSH spec, but with the goal of making it easy to implement

  259. maineboy

    running code and all that

  260. fippo

    even right... reminds me that I need to fix a couple of bugs in mine (-:

  261. maineboy

    heh

  262. ralphm

    bah, code just breaks

  263. maineboy

    we plan to submit a new version of the POSH spec by the end of next week

  264. maineboy

    and DNA along with it

  265. fippo

    remember that there is still an issue in DNA over at github :-)

  266. maineboy

    ah, will check that

  267. fippo

    oh, pull request even