XMPP Council - 2014-02-19

do we have a meeting today? is there an agenda?

We do, and...there will be within the next 6 minutes.

Odd. I was sure there was something, but I've not noted it.

Ah. I think it's that I was expecting the Editor team to ask for a vote on BOSH, but I don't think that team's off the ground yet.

Or, possibly, because there seems to be continuing discussion about BOSH on the list.

Well, I don't think we have anything for this week, then, but let's start anyway.

1) Roll call.

I'm here.

Matt sent apologies.

here

here

fippo?

here

Before we jump straight to Date, anyone know of anything we need to vote on (BOSH notwithstanding, that I'm not sure of the state of).

i think there was a new version of the two factor auth...?

Hmm. I don't see a mail about that in my inbox.

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-February/028547.html

i don't think it was officially submitted to the editor though

Ah, not a submission yet, then.

Kev, As an AOB of sorts, I'd appreciate any views Council has on the Editor team being gathered for the Board.

Dave Cridland: Not understood, but noted.

OK.

2) Date of next meeting.

SBTSBC?

wfm

wfm

i'm unavailable next week

Matt expects to be back next week, so that makes four. fippo: Would you rather we didn't meet without you?

Otherwise I'd suggest we just go on and you vote on list.

for aob i do have a question on a xep-30 clarification

kev: go ahead, i'll vote on the list if there is anything.

Fab

3) AOB.

Dave Cridland: What is it you want thoughts on?

Are there any from Council?

On what?

The Editor team is a Done Deal isn't it?

It should be setting itself up; I was thinking in terms of whether it's adequately doing so. I imagine it's too early to tell yet.

I assume that nothing's happened yet, I could be wrong.

the first meeting hasn't happened yet, or did i miss that?

I didn't *think* anything had happened.

But I'm on my travels, so I wasn't sure.

I think not.

So we done with that item?

Sounds like it.

I'll check back next week.

(I'm also waiting to see the charter of the UPnP team, so I can call for volunteers, but that's not really relevant here)

Lance: You're up.

So in XEP-0030 for requesting disco items without specifiying a node

it says 'The target entity then MUST either return its list of publicly-available items, or return an error'

however, publicly-available is ambiguous

does that mean all top-level items, or the full entire hierarchy of items

because if the latter, that eliminates the whole point of tree walking

Ah. I'm assuming we're talking direct children only, if we take the tree metaphor.

This is consistent with how MUC works. You query c.j.o to find rooms, you query jdev@cjo to see who's in it.

that's what i thought, but i had someone submit a patch to sleek that pulled in *everything* when no node is listed, citing this bit

I always assumed and implemented it as a first level search.

since child nodes are still 'publicly-accessible'

ok, any objections to me sending a patch to clarify that sentence?

None here.

And with that, I think we're done?

I think if we were expecting the full heirarchy to be returned, that wouldn't work when the tree crosses jid boundaries.

i think first-level was what made sense in the old jabberd1 architecture. not so much with more tightly integrated servers

I think, in any case, that seeing the patch would be a sensible start.

Unless fippo's saying he's fundamentally opposed to what I think is a clarification.

Not that I'm leading the discussion at all there...

not opposed, +1 on a patch

Fab. Lance: Let's see the patch :)

I think there's NOAOB, so...

Thanks all.

thanks Kev