XMPP Council - 2014-03-12

  1. stpeter has left
  2. jabberjocke has joined
  3. Tobias has left
  4. jabberjocke has left
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. Tobias do we have a meeting todayß
  8. Tobias do we have a meeting today?
  9. Kev We do.
  10. Kev I just have to survive until then (not feel great yesterday/today)
  11. Kev We've got the TLS/DNSSEC/Dialback ProtoXEP and killing 27 with fire on the agenda.
  12. Tobias ahh..ok
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. m&m has joined
  16. stpeter has joined
  17. Lance has joined
  18. bear has joined
  19. Zash has joined
  20. m&m meeting in 10?
  21. stpeter yep
  22. stpeter AFAIK
  23. m&m stpeter: I have a question for you
  24. stpeter m&m: I have an answer for you!
  25. m&m how do you deal with the RC versions of Draft XEPs?
  26. stpeter ah
  27. stpeter undocumented :-)
  28. m&m that is not covered in the README (-:
  29. stpeter yeah
  30. stpeter first we make sure that they have <interim/> element the header
  31. m&m we can have this discuss on the editor@ list
  32. stpeter in the header
  33. stpeter sure
  34. fippo oh kev?
  35. Kev Tada
  36. Kev 1) Rolls
  37. Lance here
  38. fippo here, now officially being an &yeti
  39. Kev Congrats :)
  40. Dave Cridland has joined
  41. Kev Tobias?
  42. Kev Have poked Matt.
  43. Tobias there
  44. Kev OK.
  45. Kev 2) Do we want to burn 27 with fire?
  46. m&m vaguely recalls MattJ sending apologies?
  47. Kev m&m: Thanks. Not sure why I missed that, will check later.
  48. Lance What are the problems with 27?
  49. Kev Lance: It's fundamentally broken.
  50. stpeter it would be good to document those, I suppose, if someone is motivated to do so
  51. Tobias Lance, http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_E2E_Security#Comparative_Overview first row
  52. fippo and the requirements "for privacy and security features in a well-rounded instant messaging system" have changed since 2004.
  53. Lance Quite. I'd just like us to have a list of reasons to note when we kill it with fire
  54. Kev Lance: But, it encrypts but doesn't sign messages, and signs presence but without replay protection.
  55. Lance As long as we can point to 'this is why', +1 fire
  56. m&m PGP doesn't have message integrity protection
  57. Dave Cridland m&m, Really?
  58. m&m from the last I looked
  59. Tobias m&m, PGP in general or the way XEP-0027 uses it?
  60. m&m it was added to CMS fairly recently, but I don't see updates to PGP for that
  61. Kev I /think/ the right path is that it's currently Active, so it should be moved to Deprecated and then Obsolete.
  62. Kev So I think 3) Move XEP-0027 to Deprecated
  63. Kev +1
  64. Lance +1
  65. m&m Tobias: in general, to the best of my knowledge
  66. MattJ Hey
  67. Kev Afternoon.
  68. fippo '+1 as well
  69. MattJ +1 to #2, +1 to #3 :)
  70. Tobias +1
  71. m&m Tobias: let's talk later this week, I can help you update the E2E wiki
  72. Kev 3) Move XEP-0027 to Obsolete
  73. Kev +1
  74. stpeter heh
  75. m&m (-:
  76. stpeter wouldn't that be 4)
  77. Dave Cridland Work that state machine.
  78. Tobias m&m, happy to do that :) i'd be great to have a good overview of what solutions we have and how they all failed :D before we start another one
  79. Tobias Kev, +1 on that
  80. fippo ... +1 to burning it with fire, +1 to deprecating it, +1 to obsoleting it
  81. Lance +1 obsolete
  82. Kev I think that's everyone agreed to obsolete it. It's a shame that only the author can retract, because that seems more appropriate than Obsolete, but there we go.
  83. Kev 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/starttls-dialback.html Accept?
  84. Kev I need to vote on list on this.
  85. Lance +1 accept, but it needs some editing & clarifications
  86. Dave Cridland Kev, Retracted is only moved to from Experimental actually.
  87. Lance in particular, the text in example 16 confused me
  88. Kev Dave Cridland: By the state machine, rather than the text, I think.
  89. Tobias +1 on accepting that
  90. Dave Cridland Lance, I'm certainly not going to claim it's ready for anything more than Experimental.
  91. fippo the text in example should say something along the lines of "capulet ignores the EXTERNAL offer, despite what xep-0178 says, and uses dialback"
  92. MattJ +1 to accept
  93. Kev Assuming Fippo is +1, that leaves me on-list.
  94. MattJ I'll note that I thought it was an informational/best practice document, until it started getting into protocol details
  95. fippo oh well, 0178 only says "Server1 considers EXTERNAL to be its preferred SASL mechanism", not that it should do that
  96. Dave Cridland "In this instance, Capulet ignores the EXTERNAL offer (counter to the advice in XEP-0178), and uses with dialback"
  97. Kev 5) Date of next.
  98. Dave Cridland MattJ, It *could* be Informational; I leant toward Standards Track because it can be tested.
  99. Kev SBTSBC?
  100. Lance wfm
  101. Tobias wfm
  102. fippo wfm
  103. stpeter agrees with Dave about testability
  104. m&m Re: starttls-dialback, does the Council want it to be Standards Track or Informational?
  105. Lance given dave's comment, i lean standards track
  106. MattJ time/date wfm
  107. MattJ m&m, as is, standards track
  108. Kev I need to have read it before I commend
  109. Kev Or comment, for that matter.
  110. stpeter I commend you for commenting
  111. Kev I note that other similar things (e.g. 178) are Informational.
  112. fippo so is 0185. I have no strong preference here.
  113. stpeter and they might be better as standards track, but I'd need to look again
  114. Dave Cridland stpeter, When he's commented, he'll command.
  115. m&m I will poll the council again just prior to advancement
  116. Kev I'm happy enough the ST, there isn't a clear Right Answer here, to me.
  117. Lance oh, fippo: is 185 obsoleted by 220?
  118. Kev I'll give it a read and comment/commend/command onlist.
  119. Kev 5) Any other business
  120. fippo lance: no, 0185 is just a nice way to implement 0220
  121. stpeter I'm working on an update to XEP-0138
  122. Dave Cridland Right, XEP-0185 is not required for interop, so Informational seems sensible. XEP-0178 is again testable, but I *think* it's merely expanding on RFC 3920 - I wonder if it's now covered by RFC 6120?
  123. stpeter but no action by Council required at this time
  124. Lance ah, ok. i saw "however, the recommendations in this document have been incorporated into Server Dialback (XEP-0220) [2]." and was curious
  125. Tobias no AOB from me
  126. Lance no AOB here
  127. Kev I think we're done then.
  128. Kev Thanks all.
  129. m&m AOB from XEPs
  130. Kev m&m: Just in time.
  131. Kev What've you got?
  132. m&m XEP-0124 is available now to review
  133. Kev m&m: So you want a vote on that next meeting?
  134. m&m Kev: that's your decision (-
  135. m&m but all of the changes are available in 1.10rc3
  136. m&m http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11rc3.html
  137. Kev I'm not sure it is, actually.
  138. Kev I think once we get told you want a vote on a new version, we have to do it :)
  139. m&m whether it's the next meeting or sometime later is your decision
  140. Kev Fair.
  141. m&m (-:
  142. Kev OK, that's in my TODO.
  143. Kev Anything else?
  144. m&m it's up for your review, and yes a vote is expected (-:
  145. m&m nothing from me … will get the newest protoXEP up before the end of the week
  146. Kev Ta.
  147. Kev Then we're done.
  148. Kev Thanks all
  149. Kev bangs the gavel
  150. MattJ Thanks Kev
  151. Tobias thank you
  152. Tobias has joined
  153. Peter Waher has joined
  154. Tobias has joined
  155. Peter Waher has left
  156. Lance has joined
  157. Lance has joined
  158. jabberjocke has joined
  159. jabberjocke has left
  160. jabberjocke has joined
  161. Tobias has left
  162. Tobias has joined
  163. Tobias has left
  164. m&m has left
  165. Zash has left
  166. Lance has left
  167. stpeter has left