XMPP Council - 2013-12-11

00:04:20 jabberjocke has joined
00:13:07 tato has left
00:56:43 stpeter has left
01:05:42 stpeter has joined
01:15:34 stpeter has left
01:17:14 Zash has joined
01:45:33 tato has joined
02:10:28 jabberjocke has left
02:42:38 stpeter has joined
02:53:33 stpeter has left
03:11:30 Tobias has left
03:49:56 tato has left
07:23:01 Kev has joined
07:45:11 Kev has left
08:51:02 bear has left
08:55:13 Lance has joined
09:07:18 Kev has joined
09:07:49 Kev has left
09:09:20 Kev has joined
09:16:32 Zash has joined
09:38:32 Lance has joined
09:43:34 Tobias has left
09:48:47 Kev has left
09:57:50 Lance has joined
10:21:44 Tobias has joined
10:40:54 Lance has joined
10:57:52 Lance has joined
11:31:39 Tobias has left
11:37:11 Tobias has joined
11:38:30 Lance has joined
12:29:45 jabberjocke has joined
13:36:21 stpeter has joined
13:52:20 Zash has left
14:03:07 stpeter has left
14:03:20 Peter Waher has joined
14:58:40 stpeter has joined
15:01:52 jabberjocke has left
15:10:39 Kev has joined
15:18:02 winfried has joined
15:25:50 Peter Waher Anybody knows when the council meeting will start?
15:28:46 Peter Waher confused about time zones and summer/winter time in different hemispheres
15:34:25 stpeter Peter Waher: should be in ~30 minutes
15:34:43 Peter Waher thanks
15:36:20 stpeter is on a conference call but should be done by then
15:43:08 Dave Cridland has joined
15:45:10 bear has joined
15:46:36 Kev Trying to review protoXEPs while exhausted is almost more fun than I can describe :)
15:47:36 Tobias why did we get rid of pipelining for BOSH?
15:47:50 fippo kev: get over to paris and listen to people talking about RCS and IMS!
15:47:52 Kev AIUI, because no-one did it and it's not legal.
15:48:02 Kev fippo: Revision Control System? :)
15:48:11 fippo rich communication suite
15:48:35 Kev I like mine better.
15:48:36 Tobias Kev, pidgin did it at one point, if darkrain didn't remove it....will ask him about that :)
15:51:11 Kev I think I need to review colibri some time that's not now.
15:53:47 Tobias quite a big agenda this tiem
15:53:49 Tobias quite a big agenda this time
15:55:29 Tobias Kev, will there be a LMC update?
15:55:39 Dave Cridland Kev, Pipelining POST, you mean? That's a SHOULD NOT in the spec, and we had reasons aplenty - I don't think we were breaking the spec with that.
16:00:36 winfried @Tobias: BOSH makes POST requests and you may not pipeline POST
16:01:11 Tobias winfried, ah..okay
16:08:23 Kev Dave Cridland: Ignoring a SHOULD NOT /is/ breaking the spec, IMHO.
16:09:09 Tobias wasn't always a should not, at least not in the BOSH spec...but don't know for sure...i implemented it eons ago
16:09:53 Kev No, we used to say in bosh that you should.
16:10:50 stpeter 'tis time?
16:10:53 Tobias hammer time
16:10:58 Kev 'tis time.
16:11:03 Kev 1) Roll call.
16:11:04 Dave Cridland Kev, Well, *ignoring* is not the same as acknowledging but doing it anyway. The rule is there for good reason - start pipelining POSTs at something that's not expecting it and all manner of things can go boom. But between consenting adults it's fine.
16:11:06 Lance here
16:11:09 Tobias hereo
16:11:32 Kev fippo was in doubt.
16:11:38 Kev Matt sends apologies.
16:11:44 Kev fippo: You here?
16:12:03 stpeter fippo is in Paris for WebRTC stuff right now, no?
16:12:16 Kev stpeter: Yes, he didn't know if he'd be Councilling.
16:12:19 Kev When I spoke to him earlier.
16:12:24 Kev But he doesn't seem to be here.
16:12:26 Kev 2) EventLogging http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eventlogging.html
16:12:46 Kev There's been some amount of confusion over there. I'm not opposing objecting.
16:12:53 Kev Uhm.
16:12:59 Kev Not opposing *publishing*.
16:13:09 Lance +1 for going experimental
16:13:18 Tobias what's the expected locale if the XEP says one shouldn't localize?
16:13:28 Tobias regardless of that i'm +1 for experimental
16:13:35 Kev Tobias: Then I suggest asking on list :)
16:13:40 Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0124/diff/1.11rc1/vs/1.11rc2 http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0124/diff/1.10/vs/1.11rc2 With changes since last meeting.
16:13:51 fippo kev: here, but not physically. will vote on list :-/
16:13:56 Kev I'm +1 on this.
16:13:58 Kev fippo: Thanks.
16:14:03 Lance +1 on the changes
16:14:07 Tobias +1 on XEP-0124
16:14:37 Kev 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0156/diff/1.1rc1/vs/1.1rc2 Changes since last meeting.
16:14:43 Kev I'm +1 here too.
16:14:50 Lance We do still need a legend/explanation from m&m for the chart though in 124
16:14:53 Lance +1 on 156
16:14:54 stpeter are some patches still missing / issues not addressed for BOSH specs? Winfried's message suggested so
16:15:02 Peter Waher Tobias: Sorry, all very quick... What do you mean with "what's the expected locale if the XEP says one shouldn't localize"?
16:15:12 stpeter is still on his conference call
16:15:40 Tobias wonder why XEP-0156 defaults to unsecure HTTP and unsecure DNS for retrieval of connection methods
16:16:23 Tobias Peter Waher, it says you shouldn't localized messages, does that mean that all are supposed to be in english? or in the language of the original software but never translated? or what exactly?
16:16:49 Kev Tobias / Peter Waher: If this isn't blocking publication, I suggest we take it to the list to move things along.
16:16:50 Tobias wouldn't it be sensible to expect lookup of those via HTTPS/DNSSEC if possible?
16:17:02 Peter Waher you can localize messages. What you shouldn't do is localize event IDs, for instance
16:17:25 Peter Waher "event IDs should never be localized"
16:17:30 Peter Waher "tag names should never be localized"
16:17:34 Tobias +1 on 156, will disuss it with lance later, if he wants
16:17:42 Peter Waher everything else can be localized
16:17:43 Kev Thanks.
16:17:45 stpeter Tobias: yes, it would, but the security considerations say: Entities that use these connection methods need to ensure that they conform to the security considerations of each method (e.g., by preferring to use 'https' or 'wss' URLs that are protected using Transport Layer Security).
16:17:48 Lance Tobias: k
16:17:51 Kev 5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-grouping.html
16:17:55 Tobias +1
16:17:58 Lance +1
16:18:17 Kev I'm -1 on this.
16:18:24 Tobias Kev, why?
16:18:27 Kev But only because we cannot take RFC content and include it in XEPs.
16:18:45 Kev See the recent discussion on w3c examples in XEPs.
16:18:58 fippo kev: thanks, I was in doubt about that
16:19:10 stpeter you mean "a=group:LS voice webcam"?
16:19:19 Kev fippo: XEP submission is copyright assignment. You can't copyright assign an RFC to the XSF, so ...
16:19:34 Kev stpeter: Yes, so it's trivial to fix.
16:19:43 Kev But it says at the bottom that it's doing it, so we should fix it.
16:19:55 fippo kev: will do.
16:20:07 Kev fippo: Ta. You can tell what I'm going to say about a later submission too :)
16:20:07 Kev 6) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/peptzo.html
16:20:11 Kev This looked fine to me.
16:20:34 Lance There was discussion on list that this should be a change to XEP-0080 GeoLoc instead
16:20:48 Tobias +1 on peptzo
16:20:53 m&m has joined
16:20:53 stpeter I don't see ""a=group:LS voice webcam" in RFC 5888
16:21:10 Lance Does council think updating 80 is a better approach?
16:21:11 Kev Yeah. I didn't really think that was conclusive, but I'm happy for you to retract this instead if you like :)
16:21:32 Kev Lance: I've not formed an opinion yet.
16:21:54 Kev Shall we put this onto the next meeting agenda?
16:22:06 Lance Yeah, so a -1 from me today
16:22:08 fippo stpeter: I think i adapted to 0167 already... but need to check again
16:22:11 Kev OK.
16:22:27 Kev 7) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/colibri.html
16:22:46 Kev I have to vote on this one on-list, I don't have the cycles to review it today.
16:22:46 Tobias will vote on list for this one
16:22:58 Kev s/don't/didn't/
16:23:25 Lance i'm +1 for exerimental
16:23:38 Kev Ta.
16:23:39 Kev 8) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sources.html
16:23:50 Kev I'm -1 just for the RFC examples reason, again.
16:23:58 Tobias here i was surprised by the urnietf:rfc:5576
16:24:06 Tobias here i was surprised by the urn:ietf:rfc:5576
16:24:22 Tobias does that have to be registered somwhere?
16:24:41 stpeter Tobias: we already do urn:ietf:rfc:3264
16:24:56 Tobias stpeter, ahh..ok. didn't know about that
16:25:05 Lance +1 once the rfc legal stuff is resolved
16:25:15 Tobias same as lance...+1 then
16:25:28 stpeter Tobias: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2648
16:25:30 Kev 9) Board requests for liaisons.
16:25:58 fippo tobias: rfc 2648 defines that
16:26:00 stpeter yes
16:26:13 Kev bear / stpeter: This one's for one of you.
16:26:25 stpeter I have been in communication with the UPnP Forum about a liaison relationship
16:26:55 stpeter their spec-in-progress references the core XMPP stuff as well as various pubsub-related specifications
16:27:05 stpeter they *might* also hope for some input regarding Jingle
16:27:11 stpeter that's less clear right now
16:27:35 stpeter I can work with the Council regarding a call for volunteers
16:28:03 Kev stpeter: How many people in this liason? One or more?
16:28:13 stpeter can be more than one
16:28:28 Kev And does this happen in public or private?
16:28:35 stpeter in this case, I might say "should be more than one"
16:29:41 stpeter this work happens within the UPnP Forum, and their work is not public -- they have a working group made up up UPnP members and invited "observers" (which would include the people we name)
16:30:02 stpeter I think it would be best for now if we name only XSF members, too
16:30:12 stpeter not just general people we find on the street :-)
16:30:19 Tobias heh
16:30:38 stpeter i.e., we are treating this liaison group as a "Work Team" per http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
16:31:31 stpeter I think that I can send a PDF of the proposed liaison agreement to the membership
16:31:32 Kev I'd be inclined to say that it'd be sensible to try to have someone from Council, and someone not.
16:31:33 stpeter I will check on that
16:31:41 Kev But let's ask for volunteers and see what happens.
16:31:42 stpeter Kev: sure
16:31:50 Kev So, date of next?
16:32:06 Peter Waher and dynamic forms?
16:32:09 stpeter Kev: IMHO the process is, Council asks for volunteers, chooses the liaison team, and proposes it to the Board for approval
16:32:15 Kev stpeter: Right.
16:32:52 stpeter (keeping in mind that we're going to have liaison relationships with UPnP Forum, ISO, and IEC by the looks of it, so we can't burden the same people with all the work IMHO)
16:32:58 Kev Peter Waher: Has been covered in previous meetings, no objections.
16:33:05 Kev stpeter: Yes.
16:33:09 Kev So, date of next?
16:33:11 Peter Waher (y)
16:33:24 Lance next week, usual time is good for me
16:33:31 Kev I'm inclined at this point to suggest we go for the new year, but we can do next week if people like.
16:33:36 Kev Yeah, ok, let's do that.
16:33:41 Kev Any other business?
16:33:44 stpeter WFM
16:33:47 Tobias Kev, next week wfm
16:33:48 stpeter no AOB here
16:33:49 Peter Waher so both can have numbers and be published as experimental?
16:33:51 Kev Excellent.
16:33:58 stpeter Peter Waher: I think so
16:34:05 Peter Waher excellent :)
16:34:07 Peter Waher thanks
16:34:10 Kev Peter Waher: Need the two people not present to express an opinion for logging.
16:34:16 stpeter my other conf call just finished (went 30 minutes over), sorry about the divided attention
16:34:23 Kev Right, we're done.
16:34:25 Kev Thanks all!
16:34:27 Kev bangs the gavel.
16:34:29 Tobias thank you
16:34:34 stpeter thanks, Kev!
16:34:51 Peter Waher has left
16:34:53 Lance Tobias: what was the issue you had with 156?
16:35:08 Peter Waher has joined
16:35:35 stpeter Lance: that it should be done over HTTPS or DNSSEC if possible
16:35:44 stpeter I think the security considerations talk about that, but perhaps not strongly enough for his taste
16:36:19 Tobias stpeter, i think they basically say that if you originally intended to do a secure connection you should also only choose secure alternative methods
16:36:44 Tobias but i doesn't say, at least i haven't read it that way, that you should use secure methods to discover the alternative methods
16:36:48 stpeter Tobias: that does make some sense
16:37:27 Tobias i mean sure, DNSSEC isn't here....but HTTPS has some availability ^^
16:37:29 stpeter "Entities that use these connection methods need to ensure that they conform to the security considerations of each method (e.g., by preferring to use 'https' or 'wss' URLs that are protected using Transport Layer Security)."
16:37:48 stpeter that could be worded more strongly
16:38:23 Tobias stpeter, that still only talks about the choice among the provided methods, right?
16:38:29 Dave Cridland Tobias, You're talking about using https to do the XEP-0156 discovery, right?
16:38:36 Tobias right
16:38:38 Dave Cridland Tobias, Not merely using https for BOSH.
16:38:43 Tobias requesting the json file via HTTPS
16:38:52 Tobias or requesting that TXT record via DNSSEC
16:39:03 stpeter Tobias: yes, agreed
16:39:07 Lance ah, right. yeah, adding a sentence for that should be done
16:39:30 Lance technically that should bubble up from RFC 6415 for the host-meta stuff
16:40:00 stpeter Lance: right, let's check what the RFCs say for sure
16:40:26 Lance stpeter: 6415 says if authentication is necessary for what's in the host-meta file, HTTPS only MUST be used
16:40:42 Tobias "Applications utilizing the host-meta document where the authenticity of the information is necessary MUST require the use of the HTTPS protocol and MUST NOT produce a host-meta document using other means. In addition, such applications MUST require that any redirection leading to the retrieval of a host-meta document also utilize the HTTPS protocol." they have this in their sec. considerations
16:41:36 Tobias but it wouldn't hurt to also mention it in the XEP, and that way we can add DNSSEC to it too
16:42:48 Lance Tobias +1
16:43:24 stpeter Tobias: agreed, thanks for pressing the issue
16:45:30 Peter Waher has left
16:51:56 m&m has left
17:02:07 MattJ has joined
17:04:08 Zash has joined
17:11:09 Kev has left
17:21:45 Lance has joined
17:43:33 winfried has left
17:52:32 Lance has joined
18:58:52 Tobias has left
19:29:23 Tobias has joined
19:31:44 Dave Cridland has left
19:46:53 stpeter has left
20:17:35 Dave Cridland has joined
20:31:20 Neustradamus has left
20:43:31 Lance has joined
20:48:32 Neustradamus has joined
20:58:01 Lance has joined
21:09:06 Neustradamus has left
21:13:33 Lance has joined
21:17:32 Dave Cridland has left
21:32:11 stpeter has joined
21:43:38 Lance has joined
21:48:50 stpeter has left
22:14:15 fippo stpeter: "no burden the same people" means you cant be on it :-)
22:17:17 Zash has left
22:18:21 Zash has joined
22:24:38 Zash has left