XMPP Council - 2014-02-19

  1. Tobias

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

  2. Kev

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

  3. Kev

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

  4. Kev

    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.

  5. Kev

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

  6. Kev

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

  7. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  8. Kev

    I'm here.

  9. Kev

    Matt sent apologies.

  10. Lance


  11. Tobias


  12. Kev


  13. fippo


  14. Kev

    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).

  15. fippo

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

  16. Kev

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

  17. fippo


  18. fippo

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

  19. Kev

    Ah, not a submission yet, then.

  20. Dave Cridland

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

  21. Kev

    Dave Cridland: Not understood, but noted.

  22. Kev


  23. Kev

    2) Date of next meeting.

  24. Kev


  25. Lance


  26. Tobias


  27. fippo

    i'm unavailable next week

  28. Kev

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

  29. Kev

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

  30. Lance

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

  31. fippo

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

  32. Kev


  33. Kev

    3) AOB.

  34. Kev

    Dave Cridland: What is it you want thoughts on?

  35. Dave Cridland

    Are there any from Council?

  36. Kev

    On what?

  37. Kev

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

  38. Dave Cridland

    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.

  39. Kev

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

  40. fippo

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

  41. Dave Cridland

    I didn't *think* anything had happened.

  42. Dave Cridland

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

  43. Kev

    I think not.

  44. Kev

    So we done with that item?

  45. Dave Cridland

    Sounds like it.

  46. Dave Cridland

    I'll check back next week.

  47. Kev

    (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)

  48. Kev

    Lance: You're up.

  49. Lance

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

  50. Lance

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

  51. Lance

    however, publicly-available is ambiguous

  52. Lance

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

  53. Lance

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

  54. Kev

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

  55. Kev

    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.

  56. Lance

    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

  57. Dave Cridland

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

  58. Lance

    since child nodes are still 'publicly-accessible'

  59. Lance

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

  60. Kev

    None here.

  61. Kev

    And with that, I think we're done?

  62. Dave Cridland

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

  63. fippo

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

  64. Kev

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

  65. Kev

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

  66. Kev

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

  67. fippo

    not opposed, +1 on a patch

  68. Kev

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

  69. Kev

    I think there's NOAOB, so...

  70. Kev bangs the gavel.

  71. Kev

    Thanks all.

  72. Tobias

    thanks Kev