XMPP Council - 2013-09-11

la la la

ho ho ho

T-3 minutes?

meeting today?

ayup

I know Kev sent his regrets

there is one agenda item, I think

the protoxep?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html

m&m: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html: XEP-xxxx: Jingle SDP Content

the one that said we have to find technical arguments to decline it :P

Yes, Fippo's even more unhappy about how it turned out than he thought.

it = ?

is "SDP has cooties" technical enough?

I only glanced at it, but it is a little smelly

Tobias: :-)

SDP has enough cooties, this really multiplies them

it looks like the pairing of the worst parts of two things

i don't see ralph online

he's away

ahh

well, tis time

0) Roll Call

Here

present

presente

we at least have quorum

1) <http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html> Accept as Experimental?

I'm disinclined to accept this if the author doesn't want it

the author doesn't want it? I missed that

that was the tone of his last message

From Philipp Hancke: council: please reject this (with a technical argument, not just because it's ugly)

We're supposed to reject it for technical reasons though :)

I think you should accept it.

I was waiting for someone to say that

Think how annoyed he'd be.

then he can retract it

or not

isn't the Jingle / RTC SIG supposed to be deciding what to do here?

Forgot this'd be in the logs, though. :-)

I believed so

that was my understanding

I'm not sure what the consensus is yet (author's opinion aside)

We've had virtually no list activity in a few weeks; I was hoping that people would have come back with the work they offered to do by now.

you have to prod

Yes, I know. But a combination of summer and IETF has meant I haven't.

everyone is rivited by ongoing security scandals and has no energy for trivialities like RTC :P

:D

best with something electrified

This submission is going to be my key to reinvigorating things, I hope.

then "no objections" from me

I don't have a good technical argument against it at this time

Tobias? MattJ?

I...

if we're going to publish Jingle-SDP, then IMHO we also need to publish SoX -- I'm not fond of either, but they're just about equally hideous

don't object

I think the principle problem with the proposal is that the only thing it really adds is SDP syntax - it gains nothing in terms of interop.

stpeter: agreed

Can we change the text for "experimental" back again? :)

SoX clearly does have some merit - in as much as it can be used to tunnel SIP though an XMPP network.

well, I've no problems publishing both

m&m, if it doesn't provide any value why accept it? like dave says...it adds nothing in terms of interop

Interop with whom?

I didn't say Jingle-SDP has no merit, I just say it's ugly :-)

Dave Cridland, will it help or hinder the Jingle SIG to have this accepted?

MattJ, Anyone. You can't use jingle-sdp except to talk to other jingle-sdp speakers, of course, but in order to use it you need to parse and understand SDP; you can't just blindly take an SDP (or SIP) blob and throw it across the network.

MattJ, I don't think it'll make any difference.

MattJ, The only complication would be if people treated it as anything more than a discussion point.

So it won't make any difference, and we're not convinced it's a good approach to the problem, there are no existing implementations (right?)...

and there is a risk of someone implementing it while experimental

MattJ, Right.

Dave Cridland: as the not-a-chair for the Jingle-SDP, is your opinion to publish or not?

Especially since we just changed our text to encourage them to :)

In which case I think I'd rather not publish

m&m, If we had a true equivalent of a published draft, I'd stick with that. As it is, having it in the protoxep record is sufficient for the SIG's need, and a real XEP may confuse the issue.

so, on the advice of the SIG, we can reject this proposal at this time

+1 on that

ok. I suppose Kev and Ralph have a fortnight to respond, but that might be moot

who wants to send the notice of non-acceptance to the list?

I can

gracias

2) Next Meeting

SBTSBC?

+1

SBTSBC is assumed, unless anyone has apologies to note now

None

3) Any Other Business

none here

Uh-oh

:)

going once

going twice

oh

I'd note as a general item we need to hunt candidates for council and board.

any input on LC items?

I'm working through −301

Dave Cridland: agreed

I have a lot of nits

stpeter, i'll look at the none RTT ones the next days

Dave Cridland: noted!

recruiting for the Board is always a challenge

maybe if you offered actual cookies

Oh, and Summit...

oh yes

status?

Apparently there'll be four people there.

I'm wondering whether to make it 5.

But that may mean finding a bigger table.

Inky does XMPP? or you just want to visit Portland again? ;-)

Mostly just like Portland.

That is, Portland³.

but yes some marketing is needed

I'll do some more pokage by end of week

I doubt I'd be able to make it

anything else

nothing else here

thanks for not accepting jingle-sdp ;-)

heh

fippo: it was close, though

we almost accepted because of your insistence we not

stpeter: will you be in the office later today?

mh... I need to make a note on trying reverse psychology against the current council

fippo: :)

of course, now that you've noted that, we'll note it ourselves

m&m: I'm in the office now, but not later :P

stpeter: hrm

reminds me of the old Mad magazine stuff about spy vs. anti-spy vs. anti-anti-spy...

heh

m&m: we can chat IRL :P

stpeter: but I like using non-obvious channels! Gives the the various TLAs more places to look!

m&m, There are four-letter acronyms at play in this space too.

OK, I'll text you about the smoke signals I would send except it's so rainy today

and I'll start a hangout about the drumbeats in response to your text on the smoke signals

brb

then we can tweet it and maybe even like it

"I'll post on Facebook and you'll like it." - always sounds like a parent telling off, to me.

Oh! Forgot AOB - I'm owing a vote on 301

I'll post to the ist

all of the votes were pushed off by 1 week

BTW, Ralph sent regrets to me on an IM account I hadn't logged into before the Council meeting

so..what do you guys think about a xep for pinning certs? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perrin-tls-tack-02 isn't going to be adapted soon by TLS implementations and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-08 is http specific

Tobias: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perrin-tls-tack-02: draft-perrin-tls-tack-02 - Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys

Tobias: would this be for s2s or c2s?

why not both

:)

sure :) i just dont always have access to the needed info for c2s implementations

PyTLS (or what's it called) allows access to cert fingerprints

not?

or i've been looking at the wrong lib some days ago

oh, ok. i can do fingerprints in python

so, yeah. +1 go for it

heh

Tobias: yes, does sound interesting

I need to log off now, will think about it and provide feedback on whatever you propose

okay..i'll write something up tomorrow

stpeter: oh. it showed online for me

sorry for not making it

FWIW, I think cert pinning is daft.

Dave Cridland, why? ✏

Dave Cridland has left the library. Dave Cridland has been saved.