XMPP Council - 2013-12-18


  1. Tobias

    Kev, why was the agenda titled 17-12-2013?

  2. Kev

    Because it was the 17th when I wrote it, and I'm not very smart.

  3. Tobias

    ahh..ok

  4. Tobias

    i'll probably have to leave shortly after begin of the meeting. i'll post my votes on the list

  5. Kev

    Ta.

  6. stpeter

    howdy

  7. stpeter

    bbiaf, need tea

  8. Tobias

    fippo, what's latching?

  9. fippo

    tobias: similar to TURN, i.e. a relay in the media path

  10. Tobias

    ahh..ok

  11. stpeter

    hi Ralph!

  12. ralphm

    hi!

  13. stpeter

    and bear! :-)

  14. bear

    morning

  15. ralphm

    bear: better train your cat

  16. stpeter fires up some Glenn Gould to start the work day

  17. bear teleports to Peter's house

  18. bear

    ralph, he's about as trained as you can make a cat - he no longer orders from Amazon via 1-click

  19. stpeter

    heehee

  20. ralphm

    :-)

  21. Kev

    Nearly time, it is.

  22. Kev

    'tis time, 'tis time.

  23. stpeter

    are we almost there yet? ;-)

  24. ralphm

    Jingle on!

  25. Kev

    1) Bread products()

  26. Kev

    I'm here.

  27. Lance

    here

  28. ralphm

    Croissant.

  29. fippo

    semmel

  30. Kev

    Tobias / MattJ.

  31. Tobias

    I'm not

  32. MattJ

    Here

  33. Kev

    2) http://fippo.github.io/customxeps/extensions/jingle-sources.html Accept?

  34. Kev

    +1

  35. MattJ

    +1

  36. Lance

    +1

  37. fippo

    oh, this still says the example was taken from 5576

  38. fippo

    I can fix that before publication

  39. Kev

    I thought I checked the diff and it didn't any more.

  40. Kev

    Oops.

  41. MattJ

    I trusted you, fippo!

  42. stpeter

    trust, but verify!

  43. Kev

    Anyway, yes, please remove before publication.

  44. Kev

    3) http://fippo.github.io/customxeps/extensions/jingle-grouping.html Accept?

  45. Lance

    +1

  46. Kev

    +1

  47. MattJ

    +1

  48. Kev

    I'm casually assuming fippo is +1

  49. fippo

    kev: thanks (-:

  50. Kev

    4) Date of next.

  51. ralphm

    8

  52. Kev

    8th Jan?

  53. Lance

    lgtm

  54. fippo

    WFM

  55. Peter Waher

    I wonder what is missing for eventlogging to be approved as experimental and get a number?

  56. MattJ

    wfm

  57. Kev

    Peter Waher: That's done, isn't it?

  58. MattJ

    sorry, my ethernet cable fell out

  59. Kev

    Ah, no.

  60. Peter Waher

    well, it hasn't been published

  61. Kev

    Needs Fippo and Matt to not object.

  62. stpeter

    Kev: I think we were waiting for Council members to vote

  63. Kev

    There's another week for them to do so.

  64. fippo

    kev: no objections

  65. fippo

    (didn't I say that before?)

  66. Kev

    fippo: Not in response to the minutes, at least.

  67. Kev

    Just MattJ, then.

  68. Kev

    5) AOB?

  69. stpeter

    I mentioned another vote on XEP-0152

  70. fippo

    any new votes on colibri?

  71. MattJ

    Sorry, didn't know that was waiting on me - though I know BOSH is

  72. MattJ

    I'll get to it

  73. stpeter

    the previous Council did not complete its voting, and I made changes to address Council feedback

  74. Kev

    stpeter: I think the procedure, given xep1, is for another if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term.

  75. fippo

    stpeter: is 0152 referenced by cusax?

  76. Kev

    Although I'm happy to skip that if everyone else is.

  77. stpeter

    fippo: yes

  78. stpeter

    Kev: yes, another vote for sure

  79. MattJ

    I'm happy with 152

  80. Kev

    fippo: No, that's still pending me to review it (colibri), I have a TODO.

  81. Lance

    +1 on 152

  82. stpeter

    but that can wait until the next meeting, I think (for 152)

  83. Kev

    stpeter: There was an "LC" missing from that sentence.

  84. fippo

    i'll review 0152 tomorrow, but it looked good

  85. stpeter

    Kev: ah, that I'm not completely sure of, but either way is fine with me

  86. stpeter

    and yes, it is referenced by RFC 7081

  87. Kev

    That is - I think xep1 says to LC again if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term, but I'm not opposed to skipping it if everyone's happy to.

  88. stpeter

    (informationally, anyway)

  89. Kev

    Shall we schedule to vote on it on the 8th?

  90. stpeter

    Kev: you are right... If the XMPP Council does not complete voting on a XEP before the end of its term, the XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a new Last Call on the Standards list and the newly-elected Council shall vote anew on the XEP after completion of the Last Call. This provides an opportunity for any member of the previous Council who had voted -1 to voice his or her concerns in a public forum before the new Council votes on the XEP.

  91. ralphm

    Did we even start voting?

  92. stpeter

    so let's follow our process :-)

  93. Kev

    stpeter: WFM.

  94. Kev

    Any other AOB?

  95. stpeter

    (BTW I also plan to ask the Council for a LC on XEP-0279)

  96. stpeter

    one AOB

  97. stpeter

    or 2 perhaps

  98. ralphm

    (i.e. 0152 is not listed in the tally for the 12th council)

  99. stpeter

    (1) are we OK with accepting proposals (like Philipp's) that have not gone through the inbox?

  100. Kev

    stpeter: Not in general, no.

  101. fippo

    stpeter: the xml is in the inbox actually

  102. Peter Waher

    So, am I waiting for input on eventlogging to continue?

  103. MattJ

    What practical difference does it make?

  104. MattJ

    Peter Waher, yes

  105. MattJ

    (from me, it seems)

  106. Peter Waher

    when can I expect this input?

  107. Kev

    Peter Waher: Within a week.

  108. ralphm

    Section 5 of XEP-0001 clearly shows that it is not ok.

  109. stpeter

    (2) see discussion about the liaison relationship with UPnP Forum, but that's before the XSF membership right now so no action required for the Council

  110. Peter Waher

    thanks

  111. Kev

    (People who don't vote in a meeting get a fortnight to do so on-list before they're DNV)

  112. stpeter

    MattJ: it doesn't make a practical difference, so I think it's fine to have people request publication in a less formal way, I just want to make sure we're all clear that this is fine :-)

  113. ralphm

    Although I am no longer on the council, I prefer we stick to the procedure

  114. MattJ

    If I can see rendered versions easily before voting, I'm not too concerned about what the URL is :)

  115. ralphm

    because it is a single location and notification to the standards@ list is part of it

  116. Kev

    I think this was a special case, as it was put in inbox, and there was a non-technical change needed when Council voted on it.

  117. Kev

    But in just about all cases, I think it should go through the inbox+Peter.

  118. ralphm

    I thought this was about the generic case, not this one.

  119. Peter Waher

    the tables in IM discussion, I would also appreciate some feedback on this issue

  120. Kev

    (I note we sometimes pre-approve stuff, too, which is ~= the same as this case)

  121. stpeter

    (as to inbox+Peter, I was thinking last night that we might want to turn the editor's role into a standing XSF Work Team, but I'll ponder that a bit more before suggesting it to the membership... :-)

  122. Peter Waher

    especially from Peter, since he's the author of XHTML-IM, and recommended a separate XEP in favor of using XHTML-IM

  123. Kev

    stpeter: That seems like a sensible thing to do.

  124. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, I will review your proposal and the email thread after the Board meeting

  125. Kev

    Peter Waher: I'll try to get to it when I'm trying to clear out my XSF stuff when I get back from holiday in the new year.

  126. Peter Waher

    excellent, thanks :)

  127. ralphm

    Lance mentioned some confusement on his part regarding tables, and I have the same.

  128. Kev

    I think we're done for the Council meeting, then?

  129. ralphm

    Was it really suggested it would not be another profile of XHTML in a different XEP?

  130. stpeter

    Kev: yes

  131. Kev

    Marvellous, thanks all.

  132. Kev bangs the gavel.

  133. MattJ

    Thanks Kev

  134. Kev

    ralphm: I thought the suggestion (I've not looked at that thread in a while) was to have a discoverable feature that meant "And I also accept xhtml-im tables", and that was about it.

  135. ralphm

    Kev: right

  136. Lance

    Kev: ok, that was my take away too

  137. stpeter nods

  138. ralphm

    Kev: so I don't really understand why Peter Waher went for a separate thing.

  139. Kev

    I've not looked at it in a while, I need to catch up.

  140. Peter Waher

    I understood it that way

  141. Peter Waher

    because so many did not want to change the XHTML-IM implementation

  142. Peter Waher

    thinking it was too complex

  143. Peter Waher

    with rendering

  144. Kev

    I don't think it was a case of complexity, it was a case of not shoving new stuff into a Draft XEP.

  145. Kev

    Or, at least, that would be my complaint.

  146. ralphm

    IMO we could amend XHTML-IM to allow for (discoverable) extensions and then have the XHTML Basic Tables Module.

  147. stpeter

    ralphm: quite possibly, yes

  148. Kev

    ralphm: Although XHTML-IM itself doesn't need to allow for discoverable extensions, I think, if another XEP just says "If you advertise feature X, also accept tables".

  149. ralphm

    Kev: the XEP forbids it currently

  150. ralphm

    so at least some word smithing is in order

  151. Kev

    Nothing is forbidden by negotiation :)

  152. Peter Waher

    the problem with the XHTML table module is that it is rather complex, and there was a desire to have a reduced set also

  153. Peter Waher

    and then there was the discussion about blacklisting vs. whitelisting which made me feel the XHTML-IM was a topic some didn't want to touch

  154. Lance

    the black/whitelisting issue is mainly just client implementation details we've found to occur in practice (where using only a blacklist is insecure against creative attackers). we just have to ensure that things work when only a whitelist is in use, since that's the safer route

  155. ralphm

    People will otherwise simply map the new stuff to HTML. Badly.

  156. stpeter

    Peter Waher: well, we have "profiled" the other modules (some of which are also complex), so I don't see that as a showstopper

  157. Peter Waher

    ok

  158. Peter Waher

    so, if you could revise the previous communication and then let me know in detail how you would like to see this extended, I can write an extension accordingly

  159. Peter Waher

    if you feel the proposal is not in accordance to what you prefer

  160. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, I will look at it in more detail here very soon

  161. Peter Waher

    (y)