XMPP Council - 2014-03-19

i dont think i'll be able to make it for the meeting this afternoon. i'll vote on list

Thanks Lance.

BTW - things I have on for today are: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11rc3.html UPnP liasons.

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/iot-discovery.html

(Although I hadn't noticed that one!)

m&m: Have I missed anything from the editor team?

that looks like the full list

Ta.

time?

30 minutes from now, right?

Zash, is your NTP broken?

;)

<iq type='get' id='so confuse'> <time xmlns='urn:xmpp:time'/> </iq>

kev: and dont forget the agenda item you missed last time ;-)

ah wait, you did not.

nit for 0124: content-length in example 6 seems wrong

BTW we still need to form the UPnP Liaison Team, I received a ping about that again this morning

stpeter: kev has it on the agenda, forgot it last time

the content-length in example 3 is wrong, too

and the one in example 5

hrmph

I admit that I haven't reviewed the latest and greatest

probably I should since it has my name on it, eh? ;-)

hrm

in XEP-0206, I wonder if the text about TLS really makes sense - perhaps better to say "MUST NOT" do TLS at the BOSH layer?

I thought that's what we all agreed to

well, XEP-0206 has some more work to be done then

well it says: Note: Inclusion of TLS negotiation elements is allowed but is NOT RECOMMENDED. The definition of how TLS might be implemented over BOSH is currently beyond the scope of this document. Instead, channel encryption SHOULD be completed at the HTTP (transport) layer, not the XMPP (application) layer. http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0206-1.4.html

'tis time.

1) roll call.

Lance sent apologies.

anyway, I think I'll take some time for a decent review and also look at this in relation to XMPP over WebSocket so that they're in alignment

here

Tobias? Mattj?

there

So, UPnP liasons.

I'd quite like to have either someone Council, or Council-esque on this. What do others think?

Do we have any volunteers from past/present Council or similar?

just don't look at me, I cannot

m&m: I'm not looking at you, for that reason.

yeah m&m is overbooked

This is also the reason I'm not looking at me.

but everyone is overbooked

that and conflict-of-interest issues

note also that we're likely to have 2 more liaison teams, so we'll need to spread the load

There are likely to be Jinglish things involved here, I think? Which makes fippo seem like a good choice.

If he'd like to volunteer.

fippo sounds like a fine candidate

heh

would be nice to have someone from the council on the team

well, ok.

Tobias: Are you volunteering?

well, I could do this as well since I've already been working with them

fippo: Ah, excellent.

Kev, i'm quite busy as it is this semester

i can share with peter ;-)

stpeter: Or that. Although my preference would not be for you to take on anything new :p

but that's true (for me) of all the liaison discussions

if no one else would come up i'd spring in..if it's not too much meeting work

stpeter: Well, do you /want/ to be in on this?

Kev: actually I would prefer that fippo not take on anything new ;-)

I have no idea what Fippo's workload is like :)

stpeter: I'll find things to drop ... like dialback :-)

stpeter / fippo / Tobias: do you want to quickly decide between yourselves?

how about fippo and I volunteer?

I also volunteer. UPnP are working with IoT-related things.

Peter Waher: yes, thanks

Peter Waher: Yes, thanks - you and Joachim both.

stpeter, completely happy with that :)

(y)

I like this liaison kind of thing

Yeah, I'd like to volunteer myself.

I'm just not going to.

yep

How big a team do we want here?

so me, fippo, Peter, and Joachim sounds fine

Does four people seem appropriate, or do we need to select further?

I think we don't need more

If four people is OK (not too many), I'd like to propose fippo, Joachim and Peter^2.

let's see what the actual workload is and adapt if necessary.

agreed

great

fippo / Tobias, +-1 please.

+1

'+1

Thanks

I'll take the proposal to the Board meeting in a minute, then.

3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/iot-discovery.html Accept?

I need to go on-list for this.

i haven't gotten through this completely yet, so i'll vote on list

me too -- but i'd not that i am somewhat strongly opposed to have hardcoded user@domain names there

I need to sit down and read then entire IoT "suite"

OK.

4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11rc3.html Accept 1.11?

I, similarly, need to take this to the list.

look good. the content-lengths need to be checked/fixed so i'll vote on list too with more feedback.

didn't have that one on the radar at all..will go through the diff this evening

Ta.

5) Date of next

editor notes the examples need to sanitized

16:00 UK time, Wednesday?

(I /think/ it's the end of next week Europe hits DST)

Kev, right...in the night from 29/30

m&m: will send that feedback directly to editor.

that time wfm

time wfm, too

6) AOB?

none from my side

fippo: only if that feedback is patches (-: Otherwise substantive changes really ought to be sent it to council@

So I think that's no AOB from anyone?

none from me either

In which case... thanks all.

thank you

Sigh, sorry

hi MattJ

Hey

m&m: sent. more work than I expected

ok

thank you for preserving the whitespace (-:

do the calculations assume the whitespace is present, or not present?

not present

thanks

i wasnt sure what i wanted example 6 to look like

so I left the whitespace there