XMPP Council - 2013-11-20

00:14:04 stpeter has left
00:35:27 tato has left
00:48:11 Lance has joined
00:50:13 tato has joined
01:05:15 Lance has joined
01:19:32 tato has left
02:19:18 stpeter has joined
02:24:55 stpeter has left
02:24:55 stpeter has joined
03:21:37 Tobias has left
05:18:12 stpeter has left
05:37:29 fippo kev: there needs to be a decision about the format first -- linuxwolf made me think (@ http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2013-November/002037.html ) that the hex-with-colons has some advantages over the raw-base64
05:44:49 Lance and those advantages are?
05:45:50 Lance all i can think of is simpler compatibility with sdp, but that's just a single application of this xep
05:46:14 fippo not just sdp. that format is used by sdp because browsers and openssl use it
05:46:28 fippo this might be a display issue, so it's a small decision
06:08:16 bear has joined
07:03:00 bear has left
07:12:56 bear has joined
08:28:14 Tobias has left
08:56:36 Tobias has joined
09:21:13 Lance has left
09:24:01 Lance has joined
09:37:56 bear has left
09:52:07 Lance has joined
11:35:28 Tobias has left
11:38:40 Tobias has joined
13:07:26 stpeter has joined
13:13:50 stpeter has left
14:41:20 stpeter has joined
14:44:22 jabberjocke has joined
14:54:26 Tobias has left
14:57:31 jabberjocke has left
15:13:01 jabberjocke has joined
15:27:51 Tobias has joined
15:32:41 jabberjocke has left
15:35:12 Kev Is there a recommendation anywhere that iqs should return quickly?
15:35:32 MattJ Yes, but it's rather open to interpretation
15:35:43 MattJ It doesn't use the word "quickly"
15:35:55 Kev Do you know where?
15:36:16 MattJ Somewhere, I'm looking to ensure I didn't imagine this sentence
15:37:06 MattJ I remember arguing with someone about it, so it exists somewhere I'm fairly sure
15:39:28 Kev I'm having issues with how much of rayo is presence.
15:39:34 Kev Or the two in the inbox, anyway.
15:40:00 Kev Rayo itself using presence from epemeral JIDs to show them coming into play seems sensible enough.
15:41:03 stpeter (I don't see anything in RFC 6120 about quick responses to IQ requests)
15:41:05 fippo kev: i have too...
15:41:25 fippo mostly because I think that presence shouldn't be used for actual data
15:41:26 MattJ I'm unable to find the text that I'm thinking of :/
15:41:36 fippo but that is for the core rayo spec
15:41:41 MattJ Maybe I'm confusing iq with something else
15:42:52 Kev I'm pondering if saying "send this fax" shouldn't respond once the fax is sent, rather than immediately returning, and then later sending a presence with the result, which seems really wrong.
15:43:58 fippo jingle has some precedence for iq-should-return-quickly -- we don't wait for the user to accept before sending the result
15:46:11 fippo brb
15:46:13 Kev It feels like doing what I was suggesting isn't quite right. I was wondering if we have anything written anywhere to support the feeling.
15:46:26 Kev Regardless, I think the faux-result doesn't belong in presence :)
15:48:02 MattJ After skimming all the RFCs, I can only conclude I was mistake with my "Yes" to your original question
15:48:06 MattJ *mistaken
15:48:15 Kev Ta.
15:51:26 Lance has joined
15:54:23 Dave Cridland has joined
15:56:29 MattJ How will we know when you're nodding if we have no video?
15:57:18 Dave Cridland nods
16:01:06 Zash has joined
16:08:40 fippo kev: i'm thinking that rayo itself uses presence in alot of cases where i don't know if it really fits
16:08:53 Kev That may be fair.
16:09:01 Peter Waher has joined
16:09:07 bear has joined
16:09:55 fippo looking at 0327 i'm also wondering about the rationale of putting urn:xmpp:rayo:client:1 into the node with a caps element
16:10:41 fippo in fact, the whole usage of node there...
16:11:42 Lance yeah, that feels too much like an implementation hack
16:12:39 Tobias just FYI: i might be leaving earlier later, will send any remaining votes before weekend
16:13:15 Dave Cridland Tobias, You might be leaving "earlier later"?
16:13:49 Tobias earlier than the council end, later on this day :)
16:14:04 Kev 'tis time.
16:14:10 Kev 1) Roll call.
16:14:20 Lance here
16:14:20 Tobias here
16:14:22 fippo here
16:14:47 Tobias MattJ, ping
16:14:58 MattJ Here
16:15:03 MattJ Laggy, but here
16:15:17 Kev Excellent.
16:15:37 Kev 2 - http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-cpa.html
16:15:43 Kev Accept as Experimental?
16:16:15 Kev I have a number of reservations about this, not least of which that it seems to be reimplementing pubsub.
16:16:40 fippo kev: i have similar objections, but not against this spec but against rayo
16:16:40 Kev But...I'm not sure that justifies rejecting it.
16:16:46 Tobias don't we already have a DTMF xepß
16:16:51 Lance I have reserverations about most of rayo, but i'm +1 for experimental for this since rayo is too
16:17:25 Lance for cpa itself, the main issue i have is it getting its namespaces consistent
16:17:26 fippo i'm +1 -- there are some nits i posted to standards@, but I'm sure ben langfied will fix them
16:17:29 Kev Tobias: 181?
16:17:37 stpeter right, XEP-0181
16:17:47 Tobias yes
16:17:47 Kev I don't think this is competing with 181.
16:17:54 MattJ Hmm, I'd forgotten about that one
16:17:58 fippo tobias: 0181 is inside a jingle session. rayo is about call control
16:18:10 Tobias fippo, ahh...ok
16:18:23 fippo so you might want notifications without being part of the session
16:18:35 Tobias right
16:18:35 Kev I did spend a while re-reading 327 to remind myself this afternoon. There's lots there that doesn't sit quite right.
16:18:57 fippo FWIW, i've heard a lengthy rant about rayo vs csta-xml from our csta-guy
16:19:02 MattJ I think Ben would be quite open to feedback
16:19:05 Kev I think this is !-1 from Fippo, Lance, Kev.
16:19:07 Kev Matt/Tobias?
16:19:15 MattJ +1 to accpting
16:19:27 Tobias i'm okay with accepting as experimental
16:19:32 Kev Marvellous.
16:19:42 Kev 3 - http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-fax.html Accept as experimental?
16:20:02 Tobias haven't read that yet in detail
16:20:06 Lance same reasoning as above, +1 experimental
16:20:26 fippo found some broken links, ben promised to fix them so i'm +1 as well
16:20:31 Lance my main question for the fax one is why splitting it into two namespaces?
16:20:44 Kev I'm really not comfortable with using <presence/> in place of an <iq =result/>, but I think this falls under the whole 'too much presence in rayo' thing.
16:21:06 Kev So I'm again OK with experimental.
16:21:24 Kev Tobias: Is that a "will vote on list"?
16:21:25 Kev MattJ?
16:21:31 Tobias Kev, yes
16:21:58 MattJ +1 to accepting
16:22:28 Kev 4) Adding tables to 71. Not really a Council action, but I'd like go gauge opinion here.
16:22:34 Tobias k...will read the rest of the log later..sry..g2g
16:22:39 Kev Tobias: Bibi.
16:22:58 Lance I'm ok wth adding tables to 71
16:23:08 Kev I'm vaguely opposed to adding new elements to 71, in something that's Draft.
16:23:09 MattJ and... what next? :)
16:23:37 fippo is 0071 extensible in a way that support for tables can be disco'd?
16:23:55 stpeter fippo: no
16:24:13 Kev Well, sure it is, if we add the text on disco :)
16:24:20 stpeter yeah
16:24:35 Kev But I feel like this doesn't fit into the spirit of non-backwards compatible changes for Draft, and shoving it in a new XEP with discovery would be appropriate.
16:24:39 stpeter but XEP-0071 wasn't designed that that in mind -- we could add it, though
16:25:03 Dave Cridland Adding extensibility with no impact to the deployed base seems like something that could be added in Draft.
16:25:18 stpeter I apologize for being weeks behind on email, but what exactly is the use case? is this really an IM thing?
16:25:29 MattJ stpeter, I asked that on the list - the answer is yes
16:25:31 Kev Dave Cridland: Yes, if we added discovery we could add it. But at that point, why bother?
16:25:38 Kev stpeter: Yes, IM between non-humans.
16:25:40 Dave Cridland Bot to user communications is the use case.
16:25:47 MattJ Peter Waher wants to be able to send tables of information from a bot or automated service
16:25:52 stpeter XHTML-IM was designed for IM use cases, not generalized communication
16:25:57 Kev I'm not opposed to the use case
16:26:07 stpeter by "IM" I meant human to human communication, sorry
16:26:16 Kev I'd just rather it went into another XEP than we bolted stuff onto 71 at this stage, but if I'm the only one I won't bother objecting to it.
16:26:27 MattJ You're not the only one
16:26:28 Kev So could I get a feeling on whether people are OK with adding discovery+tables to 71?
16:26:45 MattJ I think if we start adding to 71 now, it'll be a slippery slope :)
16:26:48 Kev Just a non-vote +-1 would be good.
16:26:55 MattJ a new XEP with discovery would make sense I think
16:27:14 stpeter aside from needing to improve the security considerations (thanks to Waqas), I would like to push XEP-0071 to Final in 2014
16:27:19 fippo -1 -- a new xep with discovery seems like the better way
16:27:21 Lance yeah, +1 for a new xep. i'm sure there are other issues that need fixing once we dive into it
16:27:27 Kev OK, good enough, thanks.
16:27:32 Kev I'll post thoughts to the list, then.
16:27:44 Kev 5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eventlogging.html Experimental?
16:27:47 stpeter Lance: "other issues" as in things we need to fix in XHTML-IM?
16:28:08 Kev We've stilll got a couple of items, and we're running out of time, so I'd like to press on.
16:28:14 stpeter (agreed Kev)
16:28:43 Lance +1 experimental for event logging, going by peter's latest version on the list, not the inbox version
16:28:44 Kev So, I'm not intrinsicly opossed to this one. There's a couple of warts that could do with tidying up, to my eye, but that's fine for Experimental.
16:28:52 fippo i'll vote on list. this reminds me of things i've seen in the BEHAVE wg so i want to double-check there
16:29:01 Kev Ah, I've only reviewed the inbox version.
16:29:10 Kev So let's push this out for next meeting once it's in teh inbox.
16:29:19 MattJ Agreed
16:29:23 Kev 6) 134 (Design guidelines)
16:29:34 Kev Fippo raised the issue of these being a little dated a while back.
16:29:47 fippo oh yeah...
16:30:07 fippo let me chech when that was...
16:30:10 Kev stpeter: I'm going to guess you don't have time/energy to update this at the moment?
16:30:15 stpeter heh, "Last Updated: 2004-12-09"
16:30:40 Dave Cridland "SI File Transfer [28] is a good example of respecting the strengths and weaknesses of XMPP" - :-)
16:30:46 Dave Cridland That dates it a little.
16:30:50 MattJ oooooh :)
16:31:03 stpeter it probably does need a bit of updating, yes :-)
16:31:07 fippo http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-September/026812.html
16:31:14 Kev I'd like either stpeter or someone else with Peter's blessing to volunteer to update this, I think.
16:31:31 Kev Or, if that's not on the table, consider whether it should stay at Active.
16:31:47 Kev stpeter: Thoughts?
16:32:00 fippo this sounds like something for brussels or another f2f meeting
16:32:02 Dave Cridland It actually looks mostly reasonable to me. Dated, and could use a little love, but essentially still solid.
16:32:21 stpeter after today I'll have more time to work on things, so I can add this to my .plan :P
16:32:21 Kev There's certainly a bulk of sensible stuff in there.
16:32:22 fippo dave: it lacks caps and pep
16:32:23 Peter Waher Sorry I was not available when you discussed IM in 0071. I can response in AOB later
16:32:32 Kev stpeter: OK, thanks.
16:32:40 Kev 6) Date of next.
16:32:42 Kev SBTSBC?
16:32:45 MattJ +1
16:32:48 fippo wfm
16:32:53 Lance wfm
16:32:59 stpeter I'll be offline next week, but have fun :-)
16:33:03 Kev 7) AOB?
16:33:09 Peter Waher two things
16:33:14 Kev You have 30 seconds :)
16:33:15 Lance there are the bosh changes that need to be reviewed
16:33:22 Peter Waher First the tables in 0071
16:33:24 stpeter XEP-0156 updates and BOSH patches
16:33:28 MattJ I'm reviewing BOSH
16:33:30 Kev Peter Waher: I'll reply on list for that.
16:33:33 stpeter maybe the Council can consider those next week
16:33:35 Peter Waher (y)
16:33:57 Kev stpeter: Are the BOSH versions published?
16:34:01 stpeter Kev: yes
16:34:06 Kev Ah, I missed, sorry.
16:34:11 Kev So yes, can vote next week.
16:34:14 Peter Waher the original reason for tables in XHTML-IM was to be able to create chat bots for IoT, where tabular output is necessary
16:34:17 stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0206-1.4.html
16:34:24 Kev Peter Waher: I think we can do this on-list.
16:34:31 Peter Waher (y)
16:34:31 Kev Or here, after the meeting, which I want to close now :)
16:34:36 Peter Waher second item:
16:34:38 Peter Waher Dynamic Forms
16:34:46 Peter Waher I've made all updates you requested
16:34:51 Peter Waher even though it took a while
16:34:59 Kev OK, is that in the Inbox again?
16:35:22 Peter Waher yes
16:35:38 Kev Then I just suck. I'll add it to the agenda for next week, sorry.
16:35:49 Peter Waher (y)
16:36:06 Kev Is that everyone/everything?
16:36:18 MattJ Seems so
16:36:21 Peter Waher for my part, yes
16:36:22 Kev Marvellous.
16:36:24 Peter Waher thanks
16:36:24 Kev Thanks all!
16:36:27 Kev bangs the gavel.
16:36:28 MattJ Thanks Kev :)
16:36:51 Peter Waher If you could update the eventlog XEP in the inbox
16:37:04 Peter Waher with the latest version with all corrections
16:38:00 Lance stpeter: i dont know if there are any other issues in 71, but if we're going to make a 71bis, might as well inspect to see if there are any
16:40:13 stpeter Lance: there are security issues of the kind that Waqas raised in Portland
16:40:25 stpeter we need to add some strong wording to the security considerations
16:41:06 Kev Peter Waher: So, the summary is just that I (and others) would rather see tables in a short extra spec with discovery than put into 71 at this late stage in its life. No opposition to the idea, I think.
16:41:29 stpeter Peter Waher: and yes we need to get you up and running with git access, or figure out a better way to get things updated under source control
16:42:07 Kev If the problem is just entry into Git, I don't mind getting mailed a format-patch and pushing it.
16:42:09 fippo stpeter: actually, could you check whether i have git access? sending you patches is silly :-)
16:42:36 Kev Bear's suggestion was that he'd set up a two-way sync with github once Board decide they're comfortable with that submission method.
16:42:50 bear I'm testing that this weekend
16:45:59 Peter Waher ok, excellent
16:46:23 Peter Waher So, if you think a separate XEP is warranted for tabular data, I can write a proposal. Ok with everybody?
16:46:46 Peter Waher Or do we need to discuss this on-list, before a decision is taken?
16:47:02 stpeter I think a bit of discussion on the list would be good
16:47:11 Dave Cridland Peter Waher, For purely tabular data, there is the forms stuff.
16:47:52 Peter Waher But that wouldn't get displayed in the chat window
16:48:11 Peter Waher I'll search for an example...
16:49:38 Peter Waher Example 1: Tabular data using normal text and tab characters:
16:49:38 Peter Waher http://twitpic.com/djmor4
16:49:45 Peter Waher (reading a device)
16:50:03 Peter Waher As tabular data (using Psi client)
16:50:04 Peter Waher http://twitpic.com/djrq2a
16:50:45 Peter Waher (and XHTML-IM containing tables)
16:51:26 Lance has joined
16:54:11 stpeter Peter Waher: ah, that's nice :-)
16:54:50 MattJ Peter Waher, did Psi already allow that? or you added it?
16:56:05 Peter Waher Psi allows it
16:56:19 Peter Waher but only the most basic tables
16:56:32 Peter Waher for instance, I could not use text-align style
16:56:43 Peter Waher to align text within cells left/center/right for instance
16:56:50 Peter Waher (which would be nice)
16:56:52 stpeter heh, XEP-0071 says: Modularization of XHTML defines many additional modules, such as Table Modules, Form Modules, Object Modules, and Frame Modules. None of these modules is part of the XHTML-IM Integration Set. If support for such modules is desired, it MUST be defined in a separate and distinct integration set.
16:57:10 Peter Waher Correct, but the table XHTML module is "very" complex
16:57:15 stpeter yes
16:57:22 stpeter thus my concern
16:57:24 Peter Waher so, a limited subset would suffice
16:57:33 stpeter although many of the XHTML modules are complex
16:57:41 stpeter and we've subsetted most of them anyway
16:57:46 Peter Waher yes, but also, there are many restrictions in XHTML-IM
16:57:55 Peter Waher when it comes to attributes and especially styles
16:58:00 Peter Waher which is OK under the circumstances
16:58:07 Peter Waher exactly
16:58:35 Peter Waher During the discussion on list I proposed a mimimalistic subset
16:58:44 stpeter Peter Waher: great
16:59:07 stpeter Peter Waher: I'm sorry that I haven't posted in that thread, but I shall soon
16:59:13 Peter Waher (y)
17:18:36 Peter Waher has left
17:51:20 stpeter has left
18:06:00 fippo http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0156-1.1.html <-- bosh updates include those, right?
18:06:28 fippo (heh, since there is a link to the log in the minutes i don't even need to send an email)
18:06:44 Lance heh
18:07:29 Kev It's on my list.
18:07:42 Kev Up to 8 items already.
18:08:30 fippo oh, i can add another two :-)
18:08:40 bear question - i'm chatting with one of the moz wg-presence folks and he is asking about a reference doc on presence propagation
18:08:44 bear which XEP is that?
18:08:55 Kev I don't understand the question.
18:08:57 Lance that should be core 6120/1, right?
18:08:58 fippo presence propagation?
18:09:01 Kev If it's core presence handling, that's 6121
18:09:31 bear yes, presence handling thanks
18:10:22 Lance Kev: what items do you have so far?
18:12:34 Kev Bosh, Bosh, 156, dynamic forms, event handling, plus the boilerplate.
18:15:06 bear can presence be subscriptions be done by "group" ?
18:15:53 Kev Presence subs are always 1:1
18:16:32 Kev Most servers support shared roster groups of some sort, but that's an implementation detail.
18:18:28 bear thanks
19:00:17 Tobias has joined
19:52:55 stpeter has joined
19:54:09 stpeter yeah it would be good to standardize roster groups
19:54:38 Lance in what way?
19:54:57 fippo i think that MUC solves much more use cases than roster groups typically
19:55:10 stpeter hmm
19:55:26 stpeter yeah, now that I think about it I can't say that I care too much about shared roster groups :-)
19:55:53 MattJ Users care about shared roster groups - a lot
19:56:02 stpeter they do
19:56:24 MattJ We also have a Prosody plugin to inject MUC bookmarks based on group
19:56:32 MattJ which a number of people use
19:56:43 stpeter we've never succeeded in defining a common solution here, though
19:56:50 fippo mattj: do they care about presence or chatting with a group of people?
19:57:48 MattJ Both
19:58:05 MattJ I know of people with 4K users in a single group :)
19:58:46 stpeter ouch
19:59:24 fippo i recently had a case where a server crashes because 2000 people had subscribed to 1999 other peoples presence...
19:59:47 MattJ Yeah, it found some bottlenecks in our code :)
20:00:02 MattJ We managed to make Pidgin the bottleneck, which was where we drew the line
20:00:08 fippo MUC has interesting scalability implications here ... i.e. you always send updates only to people that are in the muc
20:00:38 MattJ People do use offline messages
20:00:40 fippo which isn't terribly helpful if all people are in the same timezone and working 9-to-5
20:00:52 MattJ The folk with large groups tend to use it as a way for employees to locate other employees
20:00:55 fippo ah, non-anonymous muc then and smart clients
20:22:46 Lance from yesterday's version of the wiki: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=CloudServices/Presence&oldid=766337#Why_not_use_XMPP.3F
20:23:18 Lance and wrong room tab, of course
20:29:37 Tobias has left
20:30:45 Tobias has joined
21:28:53 Zash has left
22:59:12 stpeter has left
23:04:15 Tobias has left
23:10:38 Tobias has joined
23:25:30 Dave Cridland has left
23:36:54 jabberjocke has joined