XMPP Council - 2013-08-28

  1. m&m has joined

  2. m&m has left

  3. m&m has joined

  4. m&m has left

  5. Tobias has left

  6. Lance has left

  7. Kev has left

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. Kev has left

  10. Tobias has left

  11. Tobias has joined

  12. Tobias has left

  13. Tobias has joined

  14. Tobias has left

  15. Tobias has joined

  16. Tobias has left

  17. Tobias has joined

  18. MattJ has joined

  19. Tobias

    meeting today?

  20. Kev


  21. Tobias


  22. Kev

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

  23. Tobias


  24. Kev

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

  25. Kev

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

  26. Tobias

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

  27. Tobias

    if that's still worth anything

  28. Kev

    Got a fortnight to vote after today.

  29. Tobias

    ok..will do that then

  30. MattJ


  31. m&m has joined

  32. m&m has left

  33. m&m has joined

  34. bear has left

  35. Tobias has left

  36. Tobias has joined

  37. Peter Waher has joined

  38. fippo has joined

  39. m&m

    so are we on like Donkey Kong?

  40. Tobias

    in 9 minutes i think

  41. maineboy has joined

  42. m&m


  43. ralphm

    m&m: quoting Ice Cube, huh?

  44. MattJ

    I pretend it's still 15:00

  45. maineboy


  46. ralphm

    MattJ: me too

  47. MattJ

    Howdy maineboy

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

  49. MattJ

    Guessed :)

  50. m&m

    I am a child of the 80's

  51. ralphm


  52. Tobias

    maineboy, still haven't fixed your prosody instance?

  53. maineboy

    Tobias: not yet

  54. MattJ

    Yes, very strange stuff going on there...

  55. maineboy

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

  56. maineboy

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

  57. Tobias


  58. maineboy

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

  59. stpeter has joined

  60. ralphm

    maineboy: are you the real stpeter?

  61. stpeter

    ralphm: yes, just a different account

  62. ralphm

    stpeter: and how can we tell?

  63. stpeter

    right, that's the question

  64. 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 :-)

  65. ralphm

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

  66. 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 :-)

  67. Kev


  68. stpeter

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

  69. stpeter

    of course

  70. ralphm


  71. stpeter

    how do we really know who people are?

  72. ralphm

    let's start

  73. m&m


  74. ralphm

    I'm here

  75. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  76. stpeter

    identity is hard :-)

  77. Kev

    ralphm: hoorah for pipelining? :)

  78. m&m

    actually present for once

  79. MattJ


  80. Tobias


  81. Kev

    I'm here!

  82. 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?

  83. Kev

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

  84. Kev

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

  85. MattJ


  86. Kev


  87. MattJ

    I just read it

  88. Tobias


  89. stpeter

    ah, that's better, yes

  90. ralphm


  91. m&m


  92. ralphm

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

  93. stpeter

    PDT is the new GMT

  94. m&m

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

  95. m&m

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

  96. ralphm

    m&m: that would make it normative

  97. m&m


  98. ralphm

    m&m: a bit too strong, I think

  99. m&m

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

  100. Kev

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

  101. MattJ


  102. Kev

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

  103. m&m


  104. MattJ

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

  105. m&m


  106. Kev

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

  107. ralphm

    MattJ: Like +0:19

  108. stpeter


  109. Kev

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

  110. MattJ

    Why this one first? :P

  111. Kev

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

  112. MattJ

    I'll vote on-list

  113. m&m

    same as MattJ

  114. Tobias will vote on list within a week

  115. ralphm


  116. m&m wants to use the IST timezone

  117. 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.

  118. Kev

    4) XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding Draft?

  119. m&m


  120. stpeter likes the reverse-numerical order

  121. m&m

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

  122. Lance has joined

  123. Kev

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

  124. MattJ

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

  125. MattJ

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

  126. Kev

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

  127. m&m

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

  128. Tobias

    Kev, does it have implementations?

  129. Kev

    Tobias: anyone doing MAM.

  130. Tobias


  131. 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)

  132. Kev

    MattJ: At least 0.5 should be published first :)

  133. Kev

    So we can Deal With This Later.

  134. MattJ

    It is

  135. Kev


  136. ralphm

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

  137. Kev

    I see 0.4 on xmpp.org

  138. MattJ

    It isn't!

  139. 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

  140. stpeter

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

  141. MattJ

    stpeter, you should have stayed anonymous :)

  142. Kanchil

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

  143. MattJ

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

  144. Kev

    Mooooving on :)

  145. stpeter

    MattJ: OK!

  146. Kev

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

  147. Kev


  148. ralphm

    Kev: so is it really Rejected now?

  149. Kev

    I need to -onlist.

  150. Kev

    ralphm: Presumably so :)

  151. MattJ

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

  152. m&m

    I will vote on list for −0288

  153. ralphm

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

  154. Tobias

    vote on list for that too

  155. ralphm

    I have to review all the s2s stuff still

  156. 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.

  157. Kev

    6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback On list.

  158. 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

  159. Kev

    Or rather.

  160. Kev

    6) XEP-0220: Server Dialback

  161. ralphm

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

  162. Kev

    I need to vote on-list.

  163. m&m

    Kev: same

  164. MattJ

    Is 220 still ready for draft?

  165. MattJ

    I still see lots of discussion going on

  166. stpeter

    IMHO 220 is ready for Final :P

  167. MattJ


  168. Kev

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

  169. stpeter

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

  170. Kev

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

  171. fippo

    kev: your schema bug was fixed

  172. Kev

    fippo: Yep, ta :)

  173. stpeter

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

  174. Kev

    Don't tell anyone.

  175. MattJ

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

  176. Kev

    7) XEP-0152: Reachability Addresses

  177. Kev

    I will also on-list this one.

  178. stpeter

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

  179. m&m


  180. MattJ

    Kev, incomplete last call I think? Only Lance replied

  181. stpeter

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

  182. Kev

    MattJ: Ah, still?

  183. MattJ


  184. MattJ

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

  185. m&m

    I was using reachability?

  186. 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?

  187. MattJ

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

  188. m&m

    I have not yet, but I am doing it now

  189. Kev

    OK, thanks.

  190. 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

  191. m&m

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

  192. m&m

    and what maineboy said

  193. Kev

    I think that takes us to 9) Next meeting.

  194. MattJ


  195. Kev

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

  196. ralphm

    stpeter: jbox

  197. stpeter

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

  198. 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)

  199. m&m

    Kev: +1 on 9)

  200. stpeter

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

  201. Kev

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

  202. Tobias

    Kev, wfm

  203. Kev

    and item 10) Any other business?

  204. ralphm

    stpeter: how many implementations are there?

  205. stpeter

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

  206. Kev

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

  207. Peter Waher

    I have one question

  208. Kev

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

  209. Kev

    Peter Waher: shoot.

  210. ralphm

    Kev: us roolz

  211. Peter Waher

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

  212. Peter Waher

    any information you can share?

  213. fippo

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

  214. Peter Waher

    I would be interested to participate in any such work

  215. Kev

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

  216. ralphm

    Peter Waher: that's nice

  217. fippo

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

  218. Peter Waher

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

  219. Kev

    fippo: Ho ho ho.

  220. Kev

    stpeter: Weren't you involved in this?

  221. Peter Waher

    any information you could share would be appreciated

  222. stpeter

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

  223. Kev


  224. Kev

    I guess that means we're done, then?

  225. stpeter

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

  226. Peter Waher

    for UPnP members

  227. stpeter

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

  228. Kanchil

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

  229. stpeter

    sure, but we're not UPnP members here

  230. stpeter

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

  231. Kev

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

  232. Kev

    Thanks all!

  233. MattJ

    Thanks Kev :)

  234. Kev bangeth the gavel

  235. Tobias

    thnaks Kev

  236. Tobias

    thanks Kev

  237. Peter Waher


  238. Peter Waher

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

  239. Peter Waher

    waiting to respond

  240. Kev

    Peter Waher: Thanks.

  241. stpeter

    Council calendar updated with meetings for September

  242. stpeter

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

  243. Kanchil

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

  244. Kev

    stpeter: Ta.

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

  246. m&m


  247. Tobias

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

  248. m&m


  249. stpeter

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

  250. 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 ;)

  251. stpeter


  252. stpeter

    hmm yes

  253. Tobias


  254. stpeter

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

  255. Tobias

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

  256. stpeter

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

  257. 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 ;-)

  258. Tobias


  259. 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

  260. stpeter

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

  261. 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)

  262. maineboy has joined

  263. maineboy


  264. Kev

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

  265. maineboy

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

  266. maineboy

    Kev: AFAICT yes

  267. Kev

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

  268. maineboy

    but that's off-topic for this chatroom

  269. MattJ

    maineboy, you provided the schema for 297 :)

  270. 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

  271. ralphm

    maineboy: how did those tests against our stringpreps go?

  272. maineboy

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

  273. Kev

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

  274. Peter Waher has left

  275. 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

  276. ralphm


  277. maineboy

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

  278. maineboy

    also need to do some planning for the XMPP Summit

  279. ralphm


  280. ralphm


  281. Lance has left

  282. MattJ

    ralphm, how's FOSDEM looking?

  283. Lance has joined

  284. 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

  285. Kanchil

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

  286. maineboy

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

  287. maineboy

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

  288. fippo

    don't forget the DNA drafts

  289. maineboy

    might not finish those this year

  290. ralphm

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

  291. maineboy

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

  292. maineboy

    running code and all that

  293. fippo

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

  294. maineboy


  295. ralphm

    bah, code just breaks

  296. maineboy

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

  297. maineboy

    and DNA along with it

  298. fippo

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

  299. maineboy

    ah, will check that

  300. fippo

    oh, pull request even

  301. Neustradamus has left

  302. Neustradamus has joined

  303. fippo has left

  304. maineboy has left

  305. maineboy has joined

  306. maineboy has left

  307. Lance has left

  308. Lance has joined

  309. Lance has left

  310. Lance has joined

  311. maineboy has joined

  312. jabberjocke has joined

  313. stpeter has joined

  314. stpeter has left

  315. maineboy has left

  316. Lance has left

  317. Lance has joined

  318. m&m has left

  319. Lance has left

  320. Lance has joined

  321. maineboy has joined