XMPP Council - 2013-09-18

  1. Lance has left

  2. Lance has joined

  3. Lance has left

  4. Lance has joined

  5. Lance has left

  6. Lance has joined

  7. stpeter has joined

  8. stpeter has left

  9. stpeter has joined

  10. Lance has joined

  11. stpeter has left

  12. stpeter has joined

  13. stpeter has left

  14. stpeter has joined

  15. waqas has left

  16. Tobias has left

  17. stpeter has left

  18. waqas has joined

  19. waqas has left

  20. bear has left

  21. tato has left

  22. ralphm has left

  23. Tobias has joined

  24. Tobias has joined

  25. Tobias has left

  26. Tobias has joined

  27. xnyhps has joined

  28. xnyhps has left

  29. tato has joined

  30. stpeter has joined

  31. stpeter has left

  32. stpeter has joined

  33. stpeter has left

  34. m&m has joined

  35. stpeter has joined

  36. stpeter has left

  37. Tobias has left

  38. Tobias has joined

  39. Kev

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

  40. stpeter has joined

  41. stpeter has left

  42. stpeter has joined

  43. Peter Waher has joined

  44. MattJ has left

  45. bear has joined

  46. waqas has joined

  47. Tobias

    just reading through it

  48. fippo has joined

  49. tato has left

  50. MattJ has joined

  51. Lance has joined

  52. Kev

    Right. 'tis time, 'tis time.

  53. m&m


  54. Kev

    Thanks for sorting out the meeting in my absense.

  55. m&m

    we try

  56. Kev

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

  57. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  58. Tobias


  59. m&m


  60. m&m

    and, actually, most of the votes are due today

  61. Kev


  62. Tobias

    only left thing to read for me is dialback

  63. Tobias

    will do so later today

  64. Kev

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

  65. Kev

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

  66. m&m

    well … I have comments

  67. Kev

    Ralph is marked AFK.

  68. Kev

    Let's go through them.

  69. Kev

    2) 301?

  70. m&m


  71. Kev

    yeah == +1?

  72. m&m

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

  73. Tobias

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

  74. m&m

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

  75. Kev

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

  76. m&m

    me too

  77. m&m

    (sounds like it to mee, too)

  78. Kev

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

  79. m&m

    Oh, I know

  80. Kev

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

  81. m&m

    I had a slew of comments early on myself

  82. m&m


  83. m&m

    like I said, it's nits

  84. Tobias

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

  85. m&m

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

  86. Kev

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

  87. Kev

    Not "Might it be ready for Draft later".

  88. Tobias

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

  89. 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.

  90. m&m


  91. Kev

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

  92. Kev

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

  93. Tobias

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

  94. m&m

    the enemy of Good is Perfect

  95. Kev

    Given slippage of Draft being essentially Final these days.

  96. Kev

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

  97. m&m

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

  98. 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

  99. m&m

    consistency in references

  100. Kev

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

  101. stpeter


  102. stpeter

    sounds like the IETF :P

  103. m&m


  104. Kev

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

  105. m&m


  106. Kev


  107. m&m

    I kind of stopped after 4.1

  108. Kev

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

  109. m&m

    but I can pick it back up

  110. Kev


  111. m&m


  112. Kev

    3) 288

  113. Tobias

    +1 on 288

  114. 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.

  115. Kev

    4) 220

  116. Kev

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

  117. m&m

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

  118. Kev

    Also, +1

  119. m&m

    +1 on 220

  120. Tobias

    i'll send my vote for 220 later today

  121. Tobias

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

  122. Kev


  123. Kev

    5) 152

  124. m&m


  125. m&m

    so, I can see the utility of −152

  126. Tobias

    those cusax environenments?

  127. m&m

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

  128. m&m

    Tobias: possibly, yes

  129. Tobias

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

  130. 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.

  131. m&m


  132. m&m


  133. stpeter

    I think Emil was on vacation or moving or both

  134. Kev

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

  135. stpeter

    so I'll ping him again

  136. Kev


  137. stpeter

    yeah, probably way behind on things :)

  138. stpeter

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

  139. Kev

    Traitor :p

  140. m&m


  141. m&m

    Long Live OS/2

  142. Kev

    Psi was supported on OS/2, incidentally.

  143. Kev

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

  144. Kev


  145. stpeter

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

  146. m&m

    Kev: stpeter work in Python d-:

  147. m&m

    moving on …

  148. Kev

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

  149. stpeter


  150. stpeter


  151. Kev

    Is that right?

  152. m&m


  153. stpeter

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

  154. Tobias

    Kev, were implementations a requirement for draft?

  155. stpeter

    I sense that we're changing XEP-0001 here

  156. stpeter

    and I have a problem with that

  157. Kev

    Implementations? No.

  158. stpeter

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

  159. Kev

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

  160. stpeter

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

  161. Tobias

    lance wants it, not?

  162. stpeter

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

  163. Lance

    i've used it, yes

  164. stpeter

    they never posted to the lists

  165. m&m


  166. stpeter

    I can poke them all again individually off list

  167. stpeter

    but it was a PITA

  168. stpeter

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

  169. fippo

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

  170. Kev


  171. 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

  172. stpeter

    BUT, that said, I will poke some folks again

  173. stpeter

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

  174. stpeter

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

  175. Kev

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

  176. stpeter

    so that we have something ready to go

  177. 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.

  178. m&m

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

  179. stpeter

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

  180. m&m

    stpeter: very likely

  181. stpeter

    so we can deprecate those

  182. stpeter

    in any case

  183. Tobias

    and the schema contradicts the text

  184. stpeter

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

  185. m&m

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

  186. stpeter

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

  187. stpeter

    see you

  188. stpeter has left

  189. m&m

    pedantically technical

  190. Kev

    Yeah, we're running over for a change.

  191. Kev

    6) Date of next.

  192. m&m

    oh 297?

  193. Kev

    Isn't 297 pending more changes from Matt?

  194. Kev

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

  195. m&m

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

  196. Tobias thought that too

  197. m&m

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

  198. MattJ

    A disembodied voice says yes

  199. Kev

    Ah, OK.

  200. Kev

    Voting on that next week, then?

  201. MattJ


  202. Tobias


  203. Kev

    6) Date of next. next weke?

  204. m&m


  205. Tobias


  206. m&m

    wfm (both 5 and 6)

  207. Kev

    7) AOB?

  208. Tobias

    none here

  209. Kev

    I'll take that as a No.

  210. Kev

    Thanks all.

  211. Kev bangs the gavel.

  212. Tobias

    thank you

  213. m&m


  214. Peter Waher has left

  215. fippo has left

  216. Tobias has left

  217. waqas has left

  218. tato has joined

  219. Tobias has joined

  220. Lance has joined

  221. tato has left

  222. waqas has joined

  223. 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:

  224. 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.

  225. Kev

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

  226. MattJ

    I clearly need to read the meeting logs now

  227. Kev

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

  228. stpeter has joined

  229. stpeter has left

  230. stpeter has joined

  231. MattJ


  232. waqas


  233. m&m

  234. stpeter has left

  235. tato has joined

  236. Tobias has left

  237. Tobias has joined

  238. tato has left

  239. Lance has left

  240. stpeter has joined

  241. m&m has left

  242. m&m has joined

  243. Tobias has left

  244. Tobias has joined

  245. Tobias has left

  246. m&m has left

  247. tato has joined

  248. Lance has joined

  249. stpeter has left