XMPP Council - 2016-10-05

it is time

0) roll call

I'm here

Tobias psa MattJ Dave Cridland

present

1) XEP-0045: Business Rule for client-requested full resync https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/219

Here

+1

I'm +1

On-list

by "client" do we mean full JID?

I haven't read the proposed text yet and need to think about it

this *seems* OK but I will think about it a bit more

Also I'm the author of an implementation that doesn't currently behave this way

and post on list

2) Date of next

sbtsbc?

wfm

this reminds me, I need to publish the IoT SIG proposal

WFM

among many other tasks, like checking on the xmpp.net cron job /cc @Tobias ;-)

3) AOB?

no other business from me

no AOB from me either

None here

thanks all

Thanks Lance

yup...thanks Lance

+1

Again

MattJ: Actually...

Zash, you changed it?

MattJ: How trunk does that part

Works and makes sense IMO

Err I meant s/How//;s/$/ now/

I think the XEP has always said that a join needs the MUC to send back stuff as if it was a join.

Just that folklore (and some bad behaviour from GTalk) meant folks didn't realise, or didn't do it.

And "Groupchat 1.0" support

I wasn't comfortable with the Editors just pushing this as an editorial change, because I thought people might disagree, but I think thisis editorial.

That's distinct.

Groupchat support is what you do when you receive join stanzas without the payload. Not when you receive them with.

I've never felt the XEP to be explicit

Well the "1.0" stuff adds confusion

Specifically, I never saw it explicitly say that the payload was *only* on the join, therefore a presence stanza with the payload is only ever a new join request

As I say - I thought people might disagree and so didn't feel we could push it as an editorial change.

Well I think the update clarifies the XEP to what most people claim it says, so I'm fine with that