There is currently nothing on the agenda, unless anyone as AOB.
Lance
We are still tracking the Jingle ICE XEP that was approved, but not yet published.
MattJ
Here
Lance
1) Date of next
Lance
sbtsbc?
MattJ
wfm
Dave Cridland
Works for me.
Dave Cridland
Who's coming to the Summit from the Council?
Tobi
wfm
SamWhited
AOB: 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
Kev
I'm not Council, but I'll be there.
Dave Cridland
m&m, They don't allow anyone with a beard on a plane anymore.
Lance
I will not be there this year
m&m
clearly
Tobi
i'll be there
m&m
but Chirs Deering and Jerome should be able to help you all out
m&m
Chris even
Dave Cridland
Chairs Deering.
Lance
I believe MattJ signed up
Dave Cridland
I believe Ralph is in contact with Chris.
m&m
Yes, he is
Dave Cridland
Lance, No, Wild Matthew signed up.
Lance
Ah, right :)
Tobi
must be his good twin
Lance
2) AOB: Privacy lists
MattJ
Lance, yep, I'll be there
m&m
re jingle-ice — we'll get that published by next week
Lance
Were there still action items left to do here?
MattJ
as 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)
MattJ
Grr, lag
Dave Cridland
I don't think we ever voted. I think we merely discussed on the list.
MattJ
I'm not sure if there was clear consensus
MattJ
translation from British: there was no clear consensus
Dave Cridland
If 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)
Lance
IIRC, the missing use case was blocking groups
MattJ
There was another - blocking non-roster contacts
Dave Cridland
And non-roster people.
SamWhited
I'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)
Lance
SamWhited: I'd suggest getting that discussion rolling again by proposing some updates to the blocking XEP then
SamWhited
Jinx. Will do.
Lance
3) AOB?
Lance
Sounds like a no
Tobi
none here
Lancebangs gavel
Lance
thanks all
Tobi
thanks you Lance
Zashhas joined
Kev
SamWhited: I think Lance was probably there too.
MattJ
SamWhited, to be clear it's blocking *all* non-roster contacts
SamWhited
MattJ: ahh, gotcha, thanks.
MattJ
Some servers do it already (optionally), but it isn't per-user configurable
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, Putting in asides into the minutes? That's disgraceful behaviour.
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, Well done.
MattJ
Could be made so with ad-hoc commands, but the privacy-list supporters want a standard protocol
SamWhited
It was mentioned in the meeting by me :) it's legit.
Dave Cridland
Standardized ad-hoc would do it, mind.
psa
I 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.
Flowhas left
SamWhited
> <domain> (the domain itself matches, as does any user@domain or domain/resource)
SamWhited
Am I missing something; that sounds like domain blocking IS implemented.
SamWhited
psa: 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.
SouLhas left
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, Did we mention domain blocking?
SamWhited
Pretty 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.
Zash
Hey, what's up? // I implemented blocking from scratch
SamWhited
Zash: Just discussing deprecation again; I was trying to address the things people said were missing from the blocking command.
SamWhited
deprecation of privacy lists, that is.
Zash
Right, I got that much
SamWhited
Ah, nope, it was groups, not domains. Nevermind.
Zash
Groups and blocking people by default IIRC
SamWhited
I 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.
SouLhas left
SamWhited
Actually, 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 Cridland
SamWhited, The logic has to be there for PEP nodes with access-model roster, anyway.
SamWhited
Hmm… fair point.
Zash
SamWhited: It gets more complicated for clients if they have a group that is blocked and you add someone to it
Zash
And potential cross-client-sync issues
SamWhited
Do 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)
Zash
SamWhited: Sure
Zash
But 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.
Zash
FWIW I agree this is not something I think groups should be used for
Lance
psa: +1 to publishing tmp versions for review
psahas left
Lancehas joined
Lancehas joined
psa
SamWhited / Lance OK I'll get busier so we can finish the Jingle revision process
Lance
psa: what all is actually left?
Lance
other than expanding 166 with implementation guidance?
Lance
and more diagrams :)
fippo
and evil things you do not want to talk aboutÃ? :-p
psa
heh
psa
Lance: I think that's mostly it
Lance
i'd love to talk about them
Lance
psa: ah, good. those changes don't need to be done before the slew of other xeps are published then, but i'll start writing
Lance
there is however, one item i'll bring up on list later: adding a framed transport type in addition to datagram and streaming
psa
I would also like to triple-check the jingle-ice spec against RFC 5245, RFC 6544, and draft-ietf-ice-trickle
fippo
psa: i'll see if I can find some time for that
psa
OK: 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
psa
Lance: super
psa
and of course, it would be great to get feedback from folks like Fippo and Xander
psa
I'll post to standards@ with the links
psa
message sent
Dave Cridlandhas left
Lance
psa: thanks for being awesome, as always
psa
haha
psa
just putting one foot in front of the other, as always ;-)