XMPP Council - 2013-08-28

meeting today?

Yes.

k

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

ahh

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

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

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

if that's still worth anything

Got a fortnight to vote after today.

ok..will do that then

Likewise

so are we on like Donkey Kong?

in 9 minutes i think

right

m&m: quoting Ice Cube, huh?

I pretend it's still 15:00

howdy

MattJ: me too

Howdy maineboy

Guessed :)

I am a child of the 80's

:-D

maineboy, still haven't fixed your prosody instance?

Tobias: not yet

Yes, very strange stuff going on there...

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

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

heh

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

maineboy: are you the real stpeter?

ralphm: yes, just a different account

stpeter: and how can we tell?

right, that's the question

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 :-)

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

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 :-)

Blip.

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

of course

pfft

how do we really know who people are?

let's start

time

I'm here

1) Roll call.

identity is hard :-)

ralphm: hoorah for pipelining? :)

actually present for once

Here

here

I'm here!

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?

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

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

+1

+1

I just read it

+1

ah, that's better, yes

+1

nrm

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

PDT is the new GMT

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

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

m&m: that would make it normative

right

m&m: a bit too strong, I think

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

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

Hmm

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

exactly

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

heh

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

MattJ: Like +0:19

heh

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

Why this one first? :P

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

I'll vote on-list

same as MattJ

AOL

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.

4) XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding Draft?

right

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kev, does it have implementations?

Tobias: anyone doing MAM.

ah..ok

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)

MattJ: At least 0.5 should be published first :)

So we can Deal With This Later.

It is

Hmm.

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

I see 0.4 on xmpp.org

It isn't!

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

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

stpeter, you should have stayed anonymous :)

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

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

Mooooving on :)

MattJ: OK!

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

Draft?

Kev: so is it really Rejected now?

I need to -onlist.

ralphm: Presumably so :)

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

I will vote on list for −0288

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

vote on list for that too

I have to review all the s2s stuff still

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

6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback On list.

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

Or rather.

6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback

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

I need to vote on-list.

Kev: same

Is 220 still ready for draft?

I still see lots of discussion going on

IMHO 220 is ready for Final :P

Heh

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

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

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

kev: your schema bug was fixed

fippo: Yep, ta :)

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

Don't tell anyone.

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

7) XEP-0152: Reachability Addresses

I will also on-list this one.

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

ditto

Kev, incomplete last call I think? Only Lance replied

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

MattJ: Ah, still?

afaict

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

I was using reachability?

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?

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

I have not yet, but I am doing it now

OK, thanks.

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

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

and what maineboy said

I think that takes us to 9) Next meeting.

+1

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

stpeter: jbox

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

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)

Kev: +1 on 9)

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

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

Kev, wfm

and item 10) Any other business?

stpeter: how many implementations are there?

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

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

I have one question

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

Peter Waher: shoot.

Kev: us roolz

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

any information you can share?

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

I would be interested to participate in any such work

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

Peter Waher: that's nice

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

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

fippo: Ho ho ho.

stpeter: Weren't you involved in this?

any information you could share would be appreciated

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

OK.

I guess that means we're done, then?

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

for UPnP members

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

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

sure, but we're not UPnP members here

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

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

Thanks all!

Thanks Kev :)

thanks Kev ✏

ok

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

waiting to respond

Peter Waher: Thanks.

Council calendar updated with meetings for September

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

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

stpeter: Ta.

(-:

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

/-:

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

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

ah

hmm yes

ok

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

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

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

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 ;-)

right

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

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

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)

:P

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

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

Kev: AFAICT yes

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

but that's off-topic for this chatroom

maineboy, you provided the schema for 297 :)

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

maineboy: how did those tests against our stringpreps go?

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

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

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

oh

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

also need to do some planning for the XMPP Summit

ight

right

ralphm, how's FOSDEM looking?

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

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

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

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

don't forget the DNA drafts

might not finish those this year

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

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

running code and all that

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

heh

bah, code just breaks

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

and DNA along with it

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

ah, will check that

oh, pull request even