XMPP Council - 2013-12-11

  1. jabberjocke has joined
  2. tato has left
  3. stpeter has left
  4. stpeter has joined
  5. stpeter has left
  6. Zash has joined
  7. tato has joined
  8. jabberjocke has left
  9. stpeter has joined
  10. stpeter has left
  11. Tobias has left
  12. tato has left
  13. Kev has joined
  14. Kev has left
  15. bear has left
  16. Lance has joined
  17. Kev has joined
  18. Kev has left
  19. Kev has joined
  20. Zash has joined
  21. Lance has joined
  22. Tobias has left
  23. Kev has left
  24. Lance has joined
  25. Tobias has joined
  26. Lance has joined
  27. Lance has joined
  28. Tobias has left
  29. Tobias has joined
  30. Lance has joined
  31. jabberjocke has joined
  32. stpeter has joined
  33. Zash has left
  34. stpeter has left
  35. Peter Waher has joined
  36. stpeter has joined
  37. jabberjocke has left
  38. Kev has joined
  39. winfried has joined
  40. Peter Waher Anybody knows when the council meeting will start?
  41. Peter Waher confused about time zones and summer/winter time in different hemispheres
  42. stpeter Peter Waher: should be in ~30 minutes
  43. Peter Waher thanks
  44. stpeter is on a conference call but should be done by then
  45. Dave Cridland has joined
  46. bear has joined
  47. Kev Trying to review protoXEPs while exhausted is almost more fun than I can describe :)
  48. Tobias why did we get rid of pipelining for BOSH?
  49. fippo kev: get over to paris and listen to people talking about RCS and IMS!
  50. Kev AIUI, because no-one did it and it's not legal.
  51. Kev fippo: Revision Control System? :)
  52. fippo rich communication suite
  53. Kev I like mine better.
  54. Tobias Kev, pidgin did it at one point, if darkrain didn't remove it....will ask him about that :)
  55. Kev I think I need to review colibri some time that's not now.
  56. Tobias quite a big agenda this tiem
  57. Tobias quite a big agenda this time
  58. Tobias Kev, will there be a LMC update?
  59. 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.
  60. winfried @Tobias: BOSH makes POST requests and you may not pipeline POST
  61. Tobias winfried, ah..okay
  62. Kev Dave Cridland: Ignoring a SHOULD NOT /is/ breaking the spec, IMHO.
  63. 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
  64. Kev No, we used to say in bosh that you should.
  65. stpeter 'tis time?
  66. Tobias hammer time
  67. Kev 'tis time.
  68. Kev 1) Roll call.
  69. 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.
  70. Lance here
  71. Tobias hereo
  72. Kev fippo was in doubt.
  73. Kev Matt sends apologies.
  74. Kev fippo: You here?
  75. stpeter fippo is in Paris for WebRTC stuff right now, no?
  76. Kev stpeter: Yes, he didn't know if he'd be Councilling.
  77. Kev When I spoke to him earlier.
  78. Kev But he doesn't seem to be here.
  79. Kev 2) EventLogging http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eventlogging.html
  80. Kev There's been some amount of confusion over there. I'm not opposing objecting.
  81. Kev Uhm.
  82. Kev Not opposing *publishing*.
  83. Lance +1 for going experimental
  84. Tobias what's the expected locale if the XEP says one shouldn't localize?
  85. Tobias regardless of that i'm +1 for experimental
  86. Kev Tobias: Then I suggest asking on list :)
  87. 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.
  88. fippo kev: here, but not physically. will vote on list :-/
  89. Kev I'm +1 on this.
  90. Kev fippo: Thanks.
  91. Lance +1 on the changes
  92. Tobias +1 on XEP-0124
  93. Kev 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0156/diff/1.1rc1/vs/1.1rc2 Changes since last meeting.
  94. Kev I'm +1 here too.
  95. Lance We do still need a legend/explanation from m&m for the chart though in 124
  96. Lance +1 on 156
  97. stpeter are some patches still missing / issues not addressed for BOSH specs? Winfried's message suggested so
  98. 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"?
  99. stpeter is still on his conference call
  100. Tobias wonder why XEP-0156 defaults to unsecure HTTP and unsecure DNS for retrieval of connection methods
  101. 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?
  102. Kev Tobias / Peter Waher: If this isn't blocking publication, I suggest we take it to the list to move things along.
  103. Tobias wouldn't it be sensible to expect lookup of those via HTTPS/DNSSEC if possible?
  104. Peter Waher you can localize messages. What you shouldn't do is localize event IDs, for instance
  105. Peter Waher "event IDs should never be localized"
  106. Peter Waher "tag names should never be localized"
  107. Tobias +1 on 156, will disuss it with lance later, if he wants
  108. Peter Waher everything else can be localized
  109. Kev Thanks.
  110. 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).
  111. Lance Tobias: k
  112. Kev 5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-grouping.html
  113. Tobias +1
  114. Lance +1
  115. Kev I'm -1 on this.
  116. Tobias Kev, why?
  117. Kev But only because we cannot take RFC content and include it in XEPs.
  118. Kev See the recent discussion on w3c examples in XEPs.
  119. fippo kev: thanks, I was in doubt about that
  120. stpeter you mean "a=group:LS voice webcam"?
  121. Kev fippo: XEP submission is copyright assignment. You can't copyright assign an RFC to the XSF, so ...
  122. Kev stpeter: Yes, so it's trivial to fix.
  123. Kev But it says at the bottom that it's doing it, so we should fix it.
  124. fippo kev: will do.
  125. Kev fippo: Ta. You can tell what I'm going to say about a later submission too :)
  126. Kev 6) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/peptzo.html
  127. Kev This looked fine to me.
  128. Lance There was discussion on list that this should be a change to XEP-0080 GeoLoc instead
  129. Tobias +1 on peptzo
  130. m&m has joined
  131. stpeter I don't see ""a=group:LS voice webcam" in RFC 5888
  132. Lance Does council think updating 80 is a better approach?
  133. Kev Yeah. I didn't really think that was conclusive, but I'm happy for you to retract this instead if you like :)
  134. Kev Lance: I've not formed an opinion yet.
  135. Kev Shall we put this onto the next meeting agenda?
  136. Lance Yeah, so a -1 from me today
  137. fippo stpeter: I think i adapted to 0167 already... but need to check again
  138. Kev OK.
  139. Kev 7) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/colibri.html
  140. Kev I have to vote on this one on-list, I don't have the cycles to review it today.
  141. Tobias will vote on list for this one
  142. Kev s/don't/didn't/
  143. Lance i'm +1 for exerimental
  144. Kev Ta.
  145. Kev 8) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-sources.html
  146. Kev I'm -1 just for the RFC examples reason, again.
  147. Tobias here i was surprised by the urnietf:rfc:5576
  148. Tobias here i was surprised by the urn:ietf:rfc:5576
  149. Tobias does that have to be registered somwhere?
  150. stpeter Tobias: we already do urn:ietf:rfc:3264
  151. Tobias stpeter, ahh..ok. didn't know about that
  152. Lance +1 once the rfc legal stuff is resolved
  153. Tobias same as lance...+1 then
  154. stpeter Tobias: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2648
  155. Kev 9) Board requests for liaisons.
  156. fippo tobias: rfc 2648 defines that
  157. stpeter yes
  158. Kev bear / stpeter: This one's for one of you.
  159. stpeter I have been in communication with the UPnP Forum about a liaison relationship
  160. stpeter their spec-in-progress references the core XMPP stuff as well as various pubsub-related specifications
  161. stpeter they *might* also hope for some input regarding Jingle
  162. stpeter that's less clear right now
  163. stpeter I can work with the Council regarding a call for volunteers
  164. Kev stpeter: How many people in this liason? One or more?
  165. stpeter can be more than one
  166. Kev And does this happen in public or private?
  167. stpeter in this case, I might say "should be more than one"
  168. 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)
  169. stpeter I think it would be best for now if we name only XSF members, too
  170. stpeter not just general people we find on the street :-)
  171. Tobias heh
  172. stpeter i.e., we are treating this liaison group as a "Work Team" per http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
  173. stpeter I think that I can send a PDF of the proposed liaison agreement to the membership
  174. Kev I'd be inclined to say that it'd be sensible to try to have someone from Council, and someone not.
  175. stpeter I will check on that
  176. Kev But let's ask for volunteers and see what happens.
  177. stpeter Kev: sure
  178. Kev So, date of next?
  179. Peter Waher and dynamic forms?
  180. stpeter Kev: IMHO the process is, Council asks for volunteers, chooses the liaison team, and proposes it to the Board for approval
  181. Kev stpeter: Right.
  182. 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)
  183. Kev Peter Waher: Has been covered in previous meetings, no objections.
  184. Kev stpeter: Yes.
  185. Kev So, date of next?
  186. Peter Waher (y)
  187. Lance next week, usual time is good for me
  188. Kev I'm inclined at this point to suggest we go for the new year, but we can do next week if people like.
  189. Kev Yeah, ok, let's do that.
  190. Kev Any other business?
  191. stpeter WFM
  192. Tobias Kev, next week wfm
  193. stpeter no AOB here
  194. Peter Waher so both can have numbers and be published as experimental?
  195. Kev Excellent.
  196. stpeter Peter Waher: I think so
  197. Peter Waher excellent :)
  198. Peter Waher thanks
  199. Kev Peter Waher: Need the two people not present to express an opinion for logging.
  200. stpeter my other conf call just finished (went 30 minutes over), sorry about the divided attention
  201. Kev Right, we're done.
  202. Kev Thanks all!
  203. Kev bangs the gavel.
  204. Tobias thank you
  205. stpeter thanks, Kev!
  206. Peter Waher has left
  207. Lance Tobias: what was the issue you had with 156?
  208. Peter Waher has joined
  209. stpeter Lance: that it should be done over HTTPS or DNSSEC if possible
  210. stpeter I think the security considerations talk about that, but perhaps not strongly enough for his taste
  211. 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
  212. 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
  213. stpeter Tobias: that does make some sense
  214. Tobias i mean sure, DNSSEC isn't here....but HTTPS has some availability ^^
  215. 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)."
  216. stpeter that could be worded more strongly
  217. Tobias stpeter, that still only talks about the choice among the provided methods, right?
  218. Dave Cridland Tobias, You're talking about using https to do the XEP-0156 discovery, right?
  219. Tobias right
  220. Dave Cridland Tobias, Not merely using https for BOSH.
  221. Tobias requesting the json file via HTTPS
  222. Tobias or requesting that TXT record via DNSSEC
  223. stpeter Tobias: yes, agreed
  224. Lance ah, right. yeah, adding a sentence for that should be done
  225. Lance technically that should bubble up from RFC 6415 for the host-meta stuff
  226. stpeter Lance: right, let's check what the RFCs say for sure
  227. Lance stpeter: 6415 says if authentication is necessary for what's in the host-meta file, HTTPS only MUST be used
  228. 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
  229. Tobias but it wouldn't hurt to also mention it in the XEP, and that way we can add DNSSEC to it too
  230. Lance Tobias +1
  231. stpeter Tobias: agreed, thanks for pressing the issue
  232. Peter Waher has left
  233. m&m has left
  234. MattJ has joined
  235. Zash has joined
  236. Kev has left
  237. Lance has joined
  238. winfried has left
  239. Lance has joined
  240. Tobias has left
  241. Tobias has joined
  242. Dave Cridland has left
  243. stpeter has left
  244. Dave Cridland has joined
  245. Neustradamus has left
  246. Lance has joined
  247. Neustradamus has joined
  248. Lance has joined
  249. Neustradamus has left
  250. Lance has joined
  251. Dave Cridland has left
  252. stpeter has joined
  253. Lance has joined
  254. stpeter has left
  255. fippo stpeter: "no burden the same people" means you cant be on it :-)
  256. Zash has left
  257. Zash has joined
  258. Zash has left