fippokev: 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
Lanceand those advantages are?
Lanceall i can think of is simpler compatibility with sdp, but that's just a single application of this xep
fipponot just sdp. that format is used by sdp because browsers and openssl use it
fippothis might be a display issue, so it's a small decision
bearhas joined
bearhas left
bearhas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Lancehas left
Lancehas joined
bearhas left
Lancehas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
jabberjockehas joined
Tobiashas left
jabberjockehas left
jabberjockehas joined
Tobiashas joined
jabberjockehas left
KevIs there a recommendation anywhere that iqs should return quickly?
MattJYes, but it's rather open to interpretation
MattJIt doesn't use the word "quickly"
KevDo you know where?
MattJSomewhere, I'm looking to ensure I didn't imagine this sentence
MattJI remember arguing with someone about it, so it exists somewhere I'm fairly sure
KevI'm having issues with how much of rayo is presence.
KevOr the two in the inbox, anyway.
KevRayo itself using presence from epemeral JIDs to show them coming into play seems sensible enough.
stpeter(I don't see anything in RFC 6120 about quick responses to IQ requests)
fippokev: i have too...
fippomostly because I think that presence shouldn't be used for actual data
MattJI'm unable to find the text that I'm thinking of :/
fippobut that is for the core rayo spec
MattJMaybe I'm confusing iq with something else
KevI'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.
fippojingle has some precedence for iq-should-return-quickly -- we don't wait for the user to accept before sending the result
fippobrb
KevIt feels like doing what I was suggesting isn't quite right. I was wondering if we have anything written anywhere to support the feeling.
KevRegardless, I think the faux-result doesn't belong in presence :)
MattJAfter skimming all the RFCs, I can only conclude I was mistake with my "Yes" to your original question
MattJ*mistaken
KevTa.
Lancehas joined
Dave Cridlandhas joined
MattJHow will we know when you're nodding if we have no video?
Dave Cridlandnods
Zashhas joined
fippokev: i'm thinking that rayo itself uses presence in alot of cases where i don't know if it really fits
KevThat may be fair.
Peter Waherhas joined
bearhas joined
fippolooking at 0327 i'm also wondering about the rationale of putting urn:xmpp:rayo:client:1 into the node with a caps element
fippoin fact, the whole usage of node there...
Lanceyeah, that feels too much like an implementation hack
Tobiasjust FYI: i might be leaving earlier later, will send any remaining votes before weekend
Dave CridlandTobias, You might be leaving "earlier later"?
Tobiasearlier than the council end, later on this day :)
KevI have a number of reservations about this, not least of which that it seems to be reimplementing pubsub.
fippokev: i have similar objections, but not against this spec but against rayo
KevBut...I'm not sure that justifies rejecting it.
Tobiasdon't we already have a DTMF xepß
LanceI have reserverations about most of rayo, but i'm +1 for experimental for this since rayo is too
Lancefor cpa itself, the main issue i have is it getting its namespaces consistent
fippoi'm +1 -- there are some nits i posted to standards@, but I'm sure ben langfied will fix them
KevTobias: 181?
stpeterright, XEP-0181
Tobiasyes
KevI don't think this is competing with 181.
MattJHmm, I'd forgotten about that one
fippotobias: 0181 is inside a jingle session. rayo is about call control
Tobiasfippo, ahh...ok
fipposo you might want notifications without being part of the session
Tobiasright
KevI did spend a while re-reading 327 to remind myself this afternoon. There's lots there that doesn't sit quite right.
fippoFWIW, i've heard a lengthy rant about rayo vs csta-xml from our csta-guy
MattJI think Ben would be quite open to feedback
KevI think this is !-1 from Fippo, Lance, Kev.
KevMatt/Tobias?
MattJ+1 to accpting
Tobiasi'm okay with accepting as experimental
KevMarvellous.
Kev3 - http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-fax.html
Accept as experimental?
Tobiashaven't read that yet in detail
Lancesame reasoning as above, +1 experimental
fippofound some broken links, ben promised to fix them so i'm +1 as well
Lancemy main question for the fax one is why splitting it into two namespaces?
KevI'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.
KevSo I'm again OK with experimental.
KevTobias: Is that a "will vote on list"?
KevMattJ?
TobiasKev, yes
MattJ+1 to accepting
Kev4) Adding tables to 71.
Not really a Council action, but I'd like go gauge opinion here.
Tobiask...will read the rest of the log later..sry..g2g
KevTobias: Bibi.
LanceI'm ok wth adding tables to 71
KevI'm vaguely opposed to adding new elements to 71, in something that's Draft.
MattJand... what next? :)
fippois 0071 extensible in a way that support for tables can be disco'd?
stpeterfippo: no
KevWell, sure it is, if we add the text on disco :)
stpeteryeah
KevBut 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.
stpeterbut XEP-0071 wasn't designed that that in mind -- we could add it, though
Dave CridlandAdding extensibility with no impact to the deployed base seems like something that could be added in Draft.
stpeterI apologize for being weeks behind on email, but what exactly is the use case? is this really an IM thing?
MattJstpeter, I asked that on the list - the answer is yes
KevDave Cridland: Yes, if we added discovery we could add it. But at that point, why bother?
Kevstpeter: Yes, IM between non-humans.
Dave CridlandBot to user communications is the use case.
MattJPeter Waher wants to be able to send tables of information from a bot or automated service
stpeterXHTML-IM was designed for IM use cases, not generalized communication
KevI'm not opposed to the use case
stpeterby "IM" I meant human to human communication, sorry
KevI'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.
MattJYou're not the only one
KevSo could I get a feeling on whether people are OK with adding discovery+tables to 71?
MattJI think if we start adding to 71 now, it'll be a slippery slope :)
KevJust a non-vote +-1 would be good.
MattJa new XEP with discovery would make sense I think
stpeteraside from needing to improve the security considerations (thanks to Waqas), I would like to push XEP-0071 to Final in 2014
fippo-1 -- a new xep with discovery seems like the better way
Lanceyeah, +1 for a new xep. i'm sure there are other issues that need fixing once we dive into it
KevI'd like either stpeter or someone else with Peter's blessing to volunteer to update this, I think.
KevOr, if that's not on the table, consider whether it should stay at Active.
Kevstpeter: Thoughts?
fippothis sounds like something for brussels or another f2f meeting
Dave CridlandIt actually looks mostly reasonable to me. Dated, and could use a little love, but essentially still solid.
stpeterafter today I'll have more time to work on things, so I can add this to my .plan :P
KevThere's certainly a bulk of sensible stuff in there.
fippodave: it lacks caps and pep
Peter WaherSorry I was not available when you discussed IM in 0071. I can response in AOB later
Kevstpeter: OK, thanks.
Kev6) Date of next.
KevSBTSBC?
MattJ+1
fippowfm
Lancewfm
stpeterI'll be offline next week, but have fun :-)
Kev7) AOB?
Peter Wahertwo things
KevYou have 30 seconds :)
Lancethere are the bosh changes that need to be reviewed
Peter WaherFirst the tables in 0071
stpeterXEP-0156 updates and BOSH patches
MattJI'm reviewing BOSH
KevPeter Waher: I'll reply on list for that.
stpetermaybe the Council can consider those next week
Peter Waher(y)
Kevstpeter: Are the BOSH versions published?
stpeterKev: yes
KevAh, I missed, sorry.
KevSo yes, can vote next week.
Peter Waherthe original reason for tables in XHTML-IM was to be able to create chat bots for IoT, where tabular output is necessary
stpeterhttp://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0206-1.4.html
KevPeter Waher: I think we can do this on-list.
Peter Waher(y)
KevOr here, after the meeting, which I want to close now :)
Peter Wahersecond item:
Peter WaherDynamic Forms
Peter WaherI've made all updates you requested
Peter Wahereven though it took a while
KevOK, is that in the Inbox again?
Peter Waheryes
KevThen I just suck. I'll add it to the agenda for next week, sorry.
Peter Waher(y)
KevIs that everyone/everything?
MattJSeems so
Peter Waherfor my part, yes
KevMarvellous.
Peter Waherthanks
KevThanks all!
Kevbangs the gavel.
MattJThanks Kev :)
Peter WaherIf you could update the eventlog XEP in the inbox
Peter Waherwith the latest version with all corrections
Lancestpeter: 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
stpeterLance: there are security issues of the kind that Waqas raised in Portland
stpeterwe need to add some strong wording to the security considerations
KevPeter 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.
stpeterPeter 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
KevIf the problem is just entry into Git, I don't mind getting mailed a format-patch and pushing it.
fippostpeter: actually, could you check whether i have git access? sending you patches is silly :-)
KevBear's suggestion was that he'd set up a two-way sync with github once Board decide they're comfortable with that submission method.
bearI'm testing that this weekend
Peter Waherok, excellent
Peter WaherSo, if you think a separate XEP is warranted for tabular data, I can write a proposal. Ok with everybody?
Peter WaherOr do we need to discuss this on-list, before a decision is taken?
stpeterI think a bit of discussion on the list would be good
Dave CridlandPeter Waher, For purely tabular data, there is the forms stuff.
Peter WaherBut that wouldn't get displayed in the chat window
Peter WaherI'll search for an example...
Peter WaherExample 1: Tabular data using normal text and tab characters:
Peter Waherhttp://twitpic.com/djmor4
Peter Waher(reading a device)
Peter WaherAs tabular data (using Psi client)
Peter Waherhttp://twitpic.com/djrq2a
Peter Waher(and XHTML-IM containing tables)
Lancehas joined
stpeterPeter Waher: ah, that's nice :-)
MattJPeter Waher, did Psi already allow that? or you added it?
Peter WaherPsi allows it
Peter Waherbut only the most basic tables
Peter Waherfor instance, I could not use text-align style
Peter Waherto align text within cells left/center/right for instance
Peter Waher(which would be nice)
stpeterheh, 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.
Peter WaherCorrect, but the table XHTML module is "very" complex
stpeteryes
stpeterthus my concern
Peter Waherso, a limited subset would suffice
stpeteralthough many of the XHTML modules are complex
stpeterand we've subsetted most of them anyway
Peter Waheryes, but also, there are many restrictions in XHTML-IM
Peter Waherwhen it comes to attributes and especially styles
Peter Waherwhich is OK under the circumstances
Peter Waherexactly
Peter WaherDuring the discussion on list I proposed a mimimalistic subset
stpeterPeter Waher: great
stpeterPeter Waher: I'm sorry that I haven't posted in that thread, but I shall soon
Peter Waher(y)
Peter Waherhas left
stpeterhas left
fippohttp://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0156-1.1.html <-- bosh updates include those, right?
fippo(heh, since there is a link to the log in the minutes i don't even need to send an email)
Lanceheh
KevIt's on my list.
KevUp to 8 items already.
fippooh, i can add another two :-)
bearquestion - i'm chatting with one of the moz wg-presence folks and he is asking about a reference doc on presence propagation
bearwhich XEP is that?
KevI don't understand the question.
Lancethat should be core 6120/1, right?
fippopresence propagation?
KevIf it's core presence handling, that's 6121
bearyes, presence handling thanks
LanceKev: what items do you have so far?
KevBosh, Bosh, 156, dynamic forms, event handling, plus the boilerplate.
bearcan presence be subscriptions be done by "group" ?
KevPresence subs are always 1:1
KevMost servers support shared roster groups of some sort, but that's an implementation detail.
bearthanks
Tobiashas joined
stpeterhas joined
stpeteryeah it would be good to standardize roster groups
Lancein what way?
fippoi think that MUC solves much more use cases than roster groups typically
stpeterhmm
stpeteryeah, now that I think about it I can't say that I care too much about shared roster groups :-)
MattJUsers care about shared roster groups - a lot
stpeterthey do
MattJWe also have a Prosody plugin to inject MUC bookmarks based on group
MattJwhich a number of people use
stpeterwe've never succeeded in defining a common solution here, though
fippomattj: do they care about presence or chatting with a group of people?
MattJBoth
MattJI know of people with 4K users in a single group :)
stpeterouch
fippoi recently had a case where a server crashes because 2000 people had subscribed to 1999 other peoples presence...
MattJYeah, it found some bottlenecks in our code :)
MattJWe managed to make Pidgin the bottleneck, which was where we drew the line
fippoMUC has interesting scalability implications here ... i.e. you always send updates only to people that are in the muc
MattJPeople do use offline messages
fippowhich isn't terribly helpful if all people are in the same timezone and working 9-to-5
MattJThe folk with large groups tend to use it as a way for employees to locate other employees
fippoah, non-anonymous muc then and smart clients
Lancefrom yesterday's version of the wiki: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=CloudServices/Presence&oldid=766337#Why_not_use_XMPP.3F