XMPP Council - 2013-09-18

  1. Kev

    I really want someone to comment on 152 so we can sensibly advance it.

  2. Tobias

    just reading through it

  3. Kev

    Right. 'tis time, 'tis time.

  4. m&m


  5. Kev

    Thanks for sorting out the meeting in my absense.

  6. m&m

    we try

  7. Kev

    I don't think we have anything to discuss today.

  8. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  9. Tobias


  10. m&m


  11. m&m

    and, actually, most of the votes are due today

  12. Kev


  13. Tobias

    only left thing to read for me is dialback

  14. Tobias

    will do so later today

  15. Kev

    We can cover those in the meeting if anyone wants to vote here.

  16. Kev

    MattJ looks here, but isn't, if mail is to be believed.

  17. m&m

    well … I have comments

  18. Kev

    Ralph is marked AFK.

  19. Kev

    Let's go through them.

  20. Kev

    2) 301?

  21. m&m


  22. Kev

    yeah == +1?

  23. m&m

    so, I' am +1 on the intent … but there's a lot of formatting and consistency nits

  24. Tobias

    +1 on that if they add the MUC allowable traffic discovery stuff, which they said they'll do

  25. m&m

    it was really annoying to me … and it very well could just be me

  26. Kev

    Tobias: That sounds like -1 pending changes to me. Isn't it?

  27. m&m

    me too

  28. m&m

    (sounds like it to mee, too)

  29. Kev

    m&m: I don't enjoy reading that one. It is much *much* better than it used to be. Really is.

  30. m&m

    Oh, I know

  31. Kev

    So I think the motivation to sort things out was there.

  32. m&m

    I had a slew of comments early on myself

  33. m&m


  34. m&m

    like I said, it's nits

  35. Tobias

    Kev, right..it's probably *that* version to draft or not and not *a fixed version* to draft, right?

  36. m&m

    things the XEP Editor would be in his/her pervue to fix

  37. Kev

    Tobias: Correct. It's "Is the XEP ready for Draft?".

  38. Kev

    Not "Might it be ready for Draft later".

  39. Tobias

    if it's about *that* particular unfixed version, than i'm -1

  40. Kev

    It does raise the question of how good we want things to be before Draft. I think the MUC discovery needs to be addressed, at least.

  41. m&m


  42. Kev

    But in general, there are other things that I'm not entirely satisfied with, but probably aren't fatal.

  43. Kev

    I'm torn on whether we should block on it until it's "Right" or not.

  44. Tobias

    for /me it's mostly MUC discovery and my editorial point i raised...after that it can go to draft

  45. m&m

    the enemy of Good is Perfect

  46. Kev

    Given slippage of Draft being essentially Final these days.

  47. Kev

    m&m: Did you have any blocking comments on it, or are you +1?

  48. m&m

    before the Draft version is published, I would really like this XEP to be consistent with other XEPs

  49. stpeter

    Kev: actually, we made good progress on advancing some specs to Final for a while there, and I'm happy to come up with more candidates for that progression

  50. m&m

    consistency in references

  51. Kev

    stpeter: It wasn't "Nothing goes to Final", but "People think of Draft as Final".

  52. stpeter


  53. stpeter

    sounds like the IETF :P

  54. m&m


  55. Kev

    m&m: Could you produce a list of these?

  56. m&m


  57. Kev


  58. m&m

    I kind of stopped after 4.1

  59. Kev

    So this is a -1 at teh moment from both of you anyway.

  60. m&m

    but I can pick it back up

  61. Kev


  62. m&m


  63. Kev

    3) 288

  64. Tobias

    +1 on 288

  65. Kev

    Much as I wanted to implement this first, because I think it's the sort of XEP that bears implementing before judging, I think I'll just have to +1 it. Time time time.

  66. Kev

    4) 220

  67. Kev

    I think we should leave this Experimental a bit longer until it's been proven in the field.

  68. m&m

    I believe Dave Cridland had implemented −288 in a previous life

  69. Kev

    Also, +1

  70. m&m

    +1 on 220

  71. Tobias

    i'll send my vote for 220 later today

  72. Tobias

    m&m, prosody also has an implementation...but occasional interop problems with dave's implementation

  73. Kev


  74. Kev

    5) 152

  75. m&m


  76. m&m

    so, I can see the utility of −152

  77. Tobias

    those cusax environenments?

  78. m&m

    but it would be nice if someone that plans to implement it would comment

  79. m&m

    Tobias: possibly, yes

  80. Tobias

    well...send a mail some minutes ago..but i don't plan to implemente it so... :)

  81. Kev

    I poked Emil but got no response. I really don't think we can push this through to Draft while the people who most need it aren't supporting it.

  82. m&m


  83. m&m


  84. stpeter

    I think Emil was on vacation or moving or both

  85. Kev

    stpeter: Ah, OK. He's been showing up as Online to me all day.

  86. stpeter

    so I'll ping him again

  87. Kev


  88. stpeter

    yeah, probably way behind on things :)

  89. stpeter

    once I get my Linux machine I might start hacking up some features in Gajim :P

  90. Kev

    Traitor :p

  91. m&m


  92. m&m

    Long Live OS/2

  93. Kev

    Psi was supported on OS/2, incidentally.

  94. Kev

    I meant traitor for Gajim/Swift, not Linux/Mac, though.

  95. Kev


  96. stpeter

    Kev: I'm not getting near C++ :P

  97. m&m

    Kev: stpeter work in Python d-:

  98. m&m

    moving on …

  99. Kev

    I think both Matt and I are -1 on 152 pending someone else actually wanting to implement it.

  100. stpeter


  101. stpeter


  102. Kev

    Is that right?

  103. m&m


  104. stpeter

    do we have a requirement in XEP-0001 for implementations or expressions of desire to implement before advancing to Draft?

  105. Tobias

    Kev, were implementations a requirement for draft?

  106. stpeter

    I sense that we're changing XEP-0001 here

  107. stpeter

    and I have a problem with that

  108. Kev

    Implementations? No.

  109. stpeter

    if we want to change the criteria, we need to change XEP-0001

  110. Kev

    But if no-one comes forward saying they want it, it fails the test for being useful.

  111. stpeter

    I think it is very useful for CUSAX implementations, but I'm biased

  112. Tobias

    lance wants it, not?

  113. stpeter

    we poked a *lot* of people off list to get feedback on the CUSAX I-D

  114. Lance

    i've used it, yes

  115. stpeter

    they never posted to the lists

  116. m&m


  117. stpeter

    I can poke them all again individually off list

  118. stpeter

    but it was a PITA

  119. stpeter

    and I do NOT see that this is required by XEP-0001

  120. fippo

    stpeter: heh, even you noting names of people who wanted to send feedback in STOX didn't help :-)

  121. Kev


  122. Kev

    In order for a Standards Track XEP to advance from Proposed to Draft, it must: fill known gaps in XMPP technologies or deficiencies with existing protocols be clearly described and accurately documented so that it can be understood and implemented by interested and knowledgeable members of the XMPP developer community document any known security considerations with the proposed technology be generally stable and appropriate for further field experience have achieved rough consensus (though not necessarily unanimity) within the Standards SIG be formally defined by an XML schema receive the requisite votes from the XMPP Council

  123. stpeter

    BUT, that said, I will poke some folks again

  124. stpeter

    IMHO this might be a case of people needing it and not realizing that

  125. stpeter

    I think it is fine for us to actually be ahead of implementers sometimes

  126. Kev

    I don't think it has achieved rough consensus if no-one wants to implement it (or only one person).

  127. stpeter

    so that we have something ready to go

  128. Kev

    I'm happy for people to say "We need this and are going to use it for CUSAX", but only having one person saying they want it seems to fall shy of these criteria to me.

  129. m&m

    I would be happy with some people coming forward saying "I really need this"

  130. stpeter

    half the specs that are Draft should never have been advanced from Experimental, then

  131. m&m

    stpeter: very likely

  132. stpeter

    so we can deprecate those

  133. stpeter

    in any case

  134. Tobias

    and the schema contradicts the text

  135. stpeter

    I will poke some more folks and see what they have to say

  136. m&m

    well, there's a technical reason to not advance it

  137. stpeter

    time for the XSF board meeting in xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org

  138. stpeter

    see you

  139. m&m

    pedantically technical

  140. Kev

    Yeah, we're running over for a change.

  141. Kev

    6) Date of next.

  142. m&m

    oh 297?

  143. Kev

    Isn't 297 pending more changes from Matt?

  144. Kev

    That's what I'd noted in the minutes.

  145. m&m

    I thought he already made them, and that is what was published two (three?) weeks ago

  146. Tobias thought that too

  147. m&m

    I thought he had made the changes, but they had not been published

  148. MattJ

    A disembodied voice says yes

  149. Kev

    Ah, OK.

  150. Kev

    Voting on that next week, then?

  151. MattJ


  152. Tobias


  153. Kev

    6) Date of next. next weke?

  154. m&m


  155. Tobias


  156. m&m

    wfm (both 5 and 6)

  157. Kev

    7) AOB?

  158. Tobias

    none here

  159. Kev

    I'll take that as a No.

  160. Kev

    Thanks all.

  161. Kev bangs the gavel.

  162. Tobias

    thank you

  163. m&m


  164. Kev

    Upon reflection (and checking xep1), I don't think the whole 'we treat Draft quite like Final' is something we've tacitly accepted, I think it's what is implied by:

  165. Kev

    Note: Once an XMPP Extension Protocol has been advanced to a status of Draft, it is expected that the specification will be the basis for widespread implementation and for deployment in production environments. As a result of such implementation and deployment experience, the protocol may be subject to modification, including changes that are backwards-incompatible. Although such backwards-incompatible modifications shall be avoided if at all possible, deployment of a Draft protocol in mission-critical application may not be advisable.

  166. Kev

    That is, we're doing the Right Thing by making the move to Draft a Big Deal.

  167. MattJ

    I clearly need to read the meeting logs now

  168. Kev

    I think it would be better to do that than rely on the minutes' summary.

  169. MattJ


  170. waqas


  171. m&m