LanceThere is currently nothing on the agenda, unless anyone as AOB.
LanceWe are still tracking the Jingle ICE XEP that was approved, but not yet published.
Lance1) Date of next
Dave CridlandWorks for me.
Dave CridlandWho's coming to the Summit from the Council?
SamWhitedAOB: Whatever happened to deprecating privacy lists? Probably something I was supposed to do and forgot about
m&mhopes he can get to another summit sometime
KevI'm not Council, but I'll be there.
Dave Cridlandm&m, They don't allow anyone with a beard on a plane anymore.
LanceI will not be there this year
Tobii'll be there
m&mbut Chirs Deering and Jerome should be able to help you all out
Dave CridlandChairs Deering.
LanceI believe MattJ signed up
Dave CridlandI believe Ralph is in contact with Chris.
m&mYes, he is
Dave CridlandLance, No, Wild Matthew signed up.
LanceAh, right :)
Tobimust be his good twin
Lance2) AOB: Privacy lists
MattJLance, yep, I'll be there
m&mre jingle-ice — we'll get that published by next week
LanceWere there still action items left to do here?
MattJas Wild Matthew
SamWhited(might be nothing to discuss with privacy lists; I'm looking to see if there was some action that I or anyone else was supposed to do, but I can't remember)
Dave CridlandI don't think we ever voted. I think we merely discussed on the list.
MattJI'm not sure if there was clear consensus
MattJtranslation from British: there was no clear consensus
Dave CridlandIf we do vote, I'd like to gather the user requirements that came from the discussion and see if we can come up with "modern" case-specific XEPs to handle them.
Dave Cridland(ie, I'd vote not to deprecate it)
LanceIIRC, the missing use case was blocking groups
MattJThere was another - blocking non-roster contacts
Dave CridlandAnd non-roster people.
SamWhitedI'd volunteer to add group/non-roster blocking to the blocking command XEP (blocking non-roster contacts appears to work for me, even if it's not compliant with the spec actually)
LanceSamWhited: I'd suggest getting that discussion rolling again by proposing some updates to the blocking XEP then
SamWhitedJinx. Will do.
LanceSounds like a no
Tobithanks you Lance
KevSamWhited: I think Lance was probably there too.
MattJSamWhited, to be clear it's blocking *all* non-roster contacts
SamWhitedMattJ: ahh, gotcha, thanks.
MattJSome servers do it already (optionally), but it isn't per-user configurable
Dave CridlandSamWhited, Putting in asides into the minutes? That's disgraceful behaviour.
Dave CridlandSamWhited, Well done.
MattJCould be made so with ad-hoc commands, but the privacy-list supporters want a standard protocol
SamWhitedIt was mentioned in the meeting by me :) it's legit.
Dave CridlandStandardized ad-hoc would do it, mind.
psaI have another question about handling the Jingle XEPs, mostly for the Editor Team but partly also for Lance. Unfortunately I worked on them all (166, 167, 176, 177) in a single branch, and then we forked 176 into a new XEP. I would be happy to set up separate branches for each XEP if that's easier to process. I think that I have 167 and 177 done but I'd like some feedback on the list for those changes, so posting temporary versions would be good (we used to do that at http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/ but haven't done so in a while, I think). 166 is close to done but Lance was interested in adding some implementation notes and I'm not sure where he stands with that. And then we need to publish the new / replacement jingle-ice spec. IMHO a good next step would be publishing both 167 and 177 in the temp dir.
SamWhited> <domain> (the domain itself matches, as does any user@domain or domain/resource)
SamWhitedAm I missing something; that sounds like domain blocking IS implemented.
SamWhitedpsa: I'd say it doesn't matter; separate branches would keep the commit history cleaner and make review easier, but it shouldn't be hard to process either way.
Dave CridlandSamWhited, Did we mention domain blocking?
SamWhitedPretty sure that was one of the things people said… or at least that I was reading on the old topic.
SamWhitedgoes to check the minutes he just sent out.
ZashHey, what's up? // I implemented blocking from scratch
SamWhitedZash: Just discussing deprecation again; I was trying to address the things people said were missing from the blocking command.
SamWhiteddeprecation of privacy lists, that is.
ZashRight, I got that much
SamWhitedAh, nope, it was groups, not domains. Nevermind.
ZashGroups and blocking people by default IIRC
SamWhitedI really don't see the use for groups, just added complication IMO, but it's not that much complication, so I'll add it if the council thinks it's really necessary.
SamWhitedActually, I change my mind, I'll bring it up on list again, but I think groups does just add needless complication and shouldn't be used that way. Now clients that get a block list have to do extra work to check if any given contact is a member of a group, that's a lot of extra logic over just checking if their JID is in a list.
Dave CridlandSamWhited, The logic has to be there for PEP nodes with access-model roster, anyway.
SamWhitedHmm… fair point.
ZashSamWhited: It gets more complicated for clients if they have a group that is blocked and you add someone to it
ZashAnd potential cross-client-sync issues
SamWhitedDo groups not do any sort of pub-sub? I should go check how that works.
SamWhited(not the XEP pub sub, but just getting a push down when a group changes)
ZashBut someone creating a group and blocking it with one client that does this thing will be very confused when they add someone to that group from another client and they don't get blocked.
ZashFWIW I agree this is not something I think groups should be used for
Lancepsa: +1 to publishing tmp versions for review
psaSamWhited / Lance OK I'll get busier so we can finish the Jingle revision process
Lancepsa: what all is actually left?
Lanceother than expanding 166 with implementation guidance?
Lanceand more diagrams :)
fippoand evil things you do not want to talk aboutÃ? :-p
psaLance: I think that's mostly it
Lancei'd love to talk about them
Lancepsa: ah, good. those changes don't need to be done before the slew of other xeps are published then, but i'll start writing
Lancethere is however, one item i'll bring up on list later: adding a framed transport type in addition to datagram and streaming
psaI would also like to triple-check the jingle-ice spec against RFC 5245, RFC 6544, and draft-ietf-ice-trickle
fippopsa: i'll see if I can find some time for that
psaOK: http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0166-1.2.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0167-1.1.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0177-1.2.html
psaand of course, it would be great to get feedback from folks like Fippo and Xander
psaI'll post to standards@ with the links
Dave Cridlandhas left
Lancepsa: thanks for being awesome, as always
psajust putting one foot in front of the other, as always ;-)