XMPP Council - 2013-09-11

  1. stpeter has left
  2. m&m has joined
  3. m&m has left
  4. stpeter has joined
  5. stpeter has left
  6. m&m has joined
  7. m&m has left
  8. m&m has joined
  9. Neustradamus has left
  10. bear has left
  11. stpeter has left
  12. stpeter has joined
  13. bear has joined
  14. m&m has left
  15. Tobias has left
  16. stpeter has left
  17. Neustradamus has joined
  18. tato has left
  19. jabberjocke has joined
  20. Tobias has left
  21. Tobias has joined
  22. Lance has joined
  23. bear has left
  24. Lance has left
  25. Tobias has left
  26. Tobias has joined
  27. Tobias has left
  28. stpeter has joined
  29. stpeter has left
  30. stpeter has joined
  31. Tobias has joined
  32. Tobias has left
  33. m&m has joined
  34. Tobias has joined
  35. stpeter has left
  36. m&m has left
  37. Tobias has left
  38. m&m has joined
  39. stpeter has joined
  40. stpeter has left
  41. stpeter has joined
  42. stpeter la la la
  43. m&m ho ho ho
  44. Dave Cridland has joined
  45. stpeter T-3 minutes?
  46. Tobias meeting today?
  47. m&m ayup
  48. stpeter I know Kev sent his regrets
  49. m&m there is one agenda item, I think
  50. Tobias the protoxep?
  51. m&m http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html
  52. Kanchil m&m: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html: XEP-xxxx: Jingle SDP Content
  53. Tobias the one that said we have to find technical arguments to decline it :P
  54. Dave Cridland Yes, Fippo's even more unhappy about how it turned out than he thought.
  55. stpeter it = ?
  56. Tobias is "SDP has cooties" technical enough?
  57. m&m I only glanced at it, but it is a little smelly
  58. stpeter Tobias: :-)
  59. m&m SDP has enough cooties, this really multiplies them
  60. m&m it looks like the pairing of the worst parts of two things
  61. m&m pings one of the MattJ's
  62. MattJ has joined
  63. Tobias i don't see ralph online
  64. m&m he's away
  65. Tobias ahh
  66. m&m well, tis time
  67. m&m bangs gavel
  68. m&m 0) Roll Call
  69. MattJ Here
  70. Tobias present
  71. m&m presente
  72. m&m we at least have quorum
  73. m&m 1) <http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sdp.html> Accept as Experimental?
  74. m&m I'm disinclined to accept this if the author doesn't want it
  75. stpeter the author doesn't want it? I missed that
  76. Tobias that was the tone of his last message
  77. m&m From Philipp Hancke: council: please reject this (with a technical argument, not just because it's ugly)
  78. MattJ We're supposed to reject it for technical reasons though :)
  79. Dave Cridland I think you should accept it.
  80. MattJ I was waiting for someone to say that
  81. Dave Cridland Think how annoyed he'd be.
  82. m&m then he can retract it
  83. m&m or not
  84. stpeter isn't the Jingle / RTC SIG supposed to be deciding what to do here?
  85. Dave Cridland Forgot this'd be in the logs, though. :-)
  86. MattJ I believed so
  87. m&m that was my understanding
  88. MattJ I'm not sure what the consensus is yet (author's opinion aside)
  89. Dave Cridland 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.
  90. m&m you have to prod
  91. Dave Cridland Yes, I know. But a combination of summer and IETF has meant I haven't.
  92. stpeter everyone is rivited by ongoing security scandals and has no energy for trivialities like RTC :P
  93. MattJ :D
  94. m&m best with something electrified
  95. Dave Cridland This submission is going to be my key to reinvigorating things, I hope.
  96. m&m then "no objections" from me
  97. m&m I don't have a good technical argument against it at this time
  98. m&m Tobias? MattJ?
  99. MattJ I...
  100. stpeter 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
  101. MattJ don't object
  102. Dave Cridland 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.
  103. m&m stpeter: agreed
  104. MattJ Can we change the text for "experimental" back again? :)
  105. Dave Cridland SoX clearly does have some merit - in as much as it can be used to tunnel SIP though an XMPP network.
  106. m&m well, I've no problems publishing both
  107. Tobias m&m, if it doesn't provide any value why accept it? like dave says...it adds nothing in terms of interop
  108. MattJ Interop with whom?
  109. stpeter I didn't say Jingle-SDP has no merit, I just say it's ugly :-)
  110. MattJ Dave Cridland, will it help or hinder the Jingle SIG to have this accepted?
  111. Dave Cridland 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.
  112. Dave Cridland MattJ, I don't think it'll make any difference.
  113. Dave Cridland MattJ, The only complication would be if people treated it as anything more than a discussion point.
  114. MattJ 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?)...
  115. MattJ and there is a risk of someone implementing it while experimental
  116. Dave Cridland MattJ, Right.
  117. m&m Dave Cridland: as the not-a-chair for the Jingle-SDP, is your opinion to publish or not?
  118. MattJ Especially since we just changed our text to encourage them to :)
  119. MattJ In which case I think I'd rather not publish
  120. Dave Cridland 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.
  121. m&m so, on the advice of the SIG, we can reject this proposal at this time
  122. Tobias +1 on that
  123. tato has joined
  124. m&m ok. I suppose Kev and Ralph have a fortnight to respond, but that might be moot
  125. m&m who wants to send the notice of non-acceptance to the list?
  126. MattJ I can
  127. m&m gracias
  128. m&m 2) Next Meeting
  129. stpeter SBTSBC?
  130. Tobias +1
  131. m&m SBTSBC is assumed, unless anyone has apologies to note now
  132. MattJ None
  133. m&m 3) Any Other Business
  134. Tobias none here
  135. fippo has joined
  136. MattJ Uh-oh
  137. MattJ :)
  138. m&m going once
  139. m&m going twice
  140. stpeter oh
  141. Dave Cridland I'd note as a general item we need to hunt candidates for council and board.
  142. stpeter any input on LC items?
  143. m&m I'm working through −301
  144. stpeter Dave Cridland: agreed
  145. m&m I have a lot of nits
  146. Tobias stpeter, i'll look at the none RTT ones the next days
  147. m&m Dave Cridland: noted!
  148. stpeter recruiting for the Board is always a challenge
  149. m&m maybe if you offered actual cookies
  150. Dave Cridland Oh, and Summit...
  151. stpeter oh yes
  152. m&m status?
  153. Dave Cridland Apparently there'll be four people there.
  154. Dave Cridland I'm wondering whether to make it 5.
  155. Dave Cridland But that may mean finding a bigger table.
  156. stpeter Inky does XMPP? or you just want to visit Portland again? ;-)
  157. Dave Cridland Mostly just like Portland.
  158. Dave Cridland That is, Portland³.
  159. stpeter but yes some marketing is needed
  160. stpeter I'll do some more pokage by end of week
  161. m&m I doubt I'd be able to make it
  162. jabberjocke has left
  163. jabberjocke has joined
  164. m&m anything else
  165. m&m notes we're 5 minutes over
  166. stpeter nothing else here
  167. fippo thanks for not accepting jingle-sdp ;-)
  168. m&m bangs gavel
  169. stpeter heh
  170. m&m fippo: it was close, though
  171. m&m we almost accepted because of your insistence we not
  172. m&m stpeter: will you be in the office later today?
  173. fippo mh... I need to make a note on trying reverse psychology against the current council
  174. stpeter fippo: :)
  175. m&m of course, now that you've noted that, we'll note it ourselves
  176. stpeter m&m: I'm in the office now, but not later :P
  177. m&m stpeter: hrm
  178. stpeter reminds me of the old Mad magazine stuff about spy vs. anti-spy vs. anti-anti-spy...
  179. m&m heh
  180. stpeter m&m: we can chat IRL :P
  181. m&m stpeter: but I like using non-obvious channels! Gives the the various TLAs more places to look!
  182. Dave Cridland m&m, There are four-letter acronyms at play in this space too.
  183. stpeter OK, I'll text you about the smoke signals I would send except it's so rainy today
  184. m&m and I'll start a hangout about the drumbeats in response to your text on the smoke signals
  185. stpeter laughs
  186. stpeter brb
  187. m&m then we can tweet it and maybe even like it
  188. Dave Cridland "I'll post on Facebook and you'll like it." - always sounds like a parent telling off, to me.
  189. MattJ Oh! Forgot AOB - I'm owing a vote on 301
  190. MattJ I'll post to the ist
  191. jabberjocke has left
  192. fippo has left
  193. m&m all of the votes were pushed off by 1 week
  194. Lance has joined
  195. tato has left
  196. tato has joined
  197. Neustradamus has left
  198. tato has left
  199. tato has joined
  200. Tobias has left
  201. Tobias has joined
  202. stpeter BTW, Ralph sent regrets to me on an IM account I hadn't logged into before the Council meeting
  203. tato has left
  204. bear has joined
  205. Lance has left
  206. Lance has joined
  207. Tobias has joined
  208. Tobias 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
  209. Kanchil Tobias: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perrin-tls-tack-02: draft-perrin-tls-tack-02 - Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys
  210. Lance Tobias: would this be for s2s or c2s?
  211. Tobias why not both
  212. Tobias :)
  213. Lance sure :) i just dont always have access to the needed info for c2s implementations
  214. Lance glares at python's incomplete stdlib openssl bindings
  215. Tobias PyTLS (or what's it called) allows access to cert fingerprints
  216. Tobias not?
  217. Tobias or i've been looking at the wrong lib some days ago
  218. Lance oh, ok. i can do fingerprints in python
  219. Lance now glares at browsers for not exposing cert information to JS
  220. Lance so, yeah. +1 go for it
  221. tato has joined
  222. stpeter heh
  223. stpeter Tobias: yes, does sound interesting
  224. stpeter I need to log off now, will think about it and provide feedback on whatever you propose
  225. stpeter has left
  226. Tobias has joined
  227. Tobias has joined
  228. Tobias okay..i'll write something up tomorrow
  229. stpeter has joined
  230. stpeter has left
  231. ralphm has joined
  232. ralphm stpeter: oh. it showed online for me
  233. ralphm sorry for not making it
  234. Lance has left
  235. tato has left
  236. Tobias has joined
  237. Lance has joined
  238. Dave Cridland FWIW, I think cert pinning is daft.
  239. MattJ Why?
  240. MattJ Dave Cridland, why?
  241. m&m Dave Cridland has left the library. Dave Cridland has been saved.
  242. tato has joined
  243. tato has left
  244. tato has joined
  245. tato has left
  246. tato has joined
  247. tato has left
  248. Tobias has joined
  249. tato has joined
  250. Tobias has left
  251. Tobias has joined
  252. m&m has left
  253. m&m has joined
  254. m&m has left