XMPP Council - 2017-03-22

  1. Tobias

    SamWhited, I certainly don't see the council as the driving force of XMPP's IoT strategy..but we should certainly try to help our IoT SIG with the XMPP related parts where we can. don't we?

  2. SamWhited

    Tobias: Sure, I just wanted to make sure someone was actually going to show up if we were going to call a meeting

  3. Tobias

    I certainly would show up if i'm awake at that time and there are no other conflicts :)

  4. Tobias

    SamWhited, does https://trello.com/c/7Ayqtk9T/177-xep-0334-message-processing-hints mean the author wants us to vote on its advancement?

  5. Tobias

    or vote on issueing an LC for it

  6. Tobias


  7. SamWhited

    It's currently in LC, I don't think it's going to get more feedback so we should vote on advancement (disclaimer: I'm probably going to -1 it)

  8. Tobias


  9. SamWhited

    It wasn't really clear to me what to do when the LC was over and feedback had been addressed; I think pointing to a specific version and saying "this one, vote" is correct?

  10. Tobias


  11. Tobias

    the council votes on advancing a specific version

  12. Kev

    Yes, changes can't be made after Council vote and before going to Draft.

  13. Tobias


  14. Tobias

    it's about time

  15. Tobias

    1) roll call

  16. Link Mauve

    Hi. o/

  17. daniel


  18. SamWhited


  19. Tobias

    Dave Cridland, ping

  20. Dave Cridland

    Sorry, here, distracted for obvious reasons.

  21. Tobias

    2) Minute taker

  22. Tobias

    any volunteers?

  23. Tobias

    I can write them up again I suppose

  24. jonasw can do it, but I haven’t done it before for council meetings.

  25. jonasw

    and I’m not sure if I am allowed to do it.

  26. SamWhited

    jonasw: Yey, thanks!

  27. Tobias

    jonasw, oh sure...thanks

  28. Dave Cridland

    jonasw, Not only allowed but encouraged.

  29. jonasw

    great then!

  30. Tobias

    3) https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-February/032328.html

  31. Tobias

    Link Mauve, any news on this one?

  32. Link Mauve

    None, I just came back from skiing two days ago and didn’t have any time to act on it.

  33. Tobias

    ah..ok..so i guess not much to discuss on that point then

  34. Link Mauve

    Yes, sorry. :/

  35. Tobias

    4) IEEE IoT

  36. Tobias

    I got around replying to Sam's mail and wrote to Rikard so we can setup a XMPP IoT SIG meeting where council members can join and we can together discuss a good IoT strategy for XMPP, on a rather high level

  37. Dave Cridland

    Sounds good.

  38. Tobias

    5) Ge0rG did changes after the last vote started, do we want/need to revote? are these changes major enough? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436

  39. Tobias

    https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg is the voting trello card on this

  40. Tobias

    where nearly everbody voted on, except for Dave Cridland

  41. Dave Cridland

    I also did.

  42. Tobias

    great, then it's just not mirrored in the trello

  43. Tobias

    so i guess no further voting is required on that point, right?

  44. Dave Cridland

    I voted for (or at least not against).

  45. Tobias


  46. Dave Cridland

    I'd note the discussion in the xsf@ room a few days back on adding normative language to existing specs, though.

  47. Tobias

    6) Vote on advancing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0334.html Version 0.2 to Draft

  48. Tobias will vote on list

  49. jonasw

    Dave Cridland: mind to give a one-line summary I can quo…te in the minutes?

  50. Dave Cridland

    jonasw, I think you were there, but it's simply that we need to avoid adding normative requirements to existing specifications, and instead negotiate new features (and encourage their use via compliance specs).

  51. jonasw

    I was there, and I will link the logs. Just wanted to make sure.

  52. Dave Cridland

    I think I'm +1 on '334. Though I'm curious as to why Sam's thinking of -1'ing it.

  53. SamWhited

    I've come to the conclusion that these things should be defined in the XEPs that would use them, eg. <no-copy/> should be defined in carbons. Theoretically they're reusable between similar XEPs, but in practice I think it just means we'll end up with <private/> in carbons and <no-copy/> in hints, and no one is quite sure what the difference is or what to do about it.

  54. SamWhited

    Also, I'm not sure how we'd update this in the future if new requirements need new hints; deprecate the draft XEP and start over?

  55. Link Mauve

    SamWhited, no-copy isn’t only meant for carbons, and carbons defines both private (for legacy reasons) and no-copy now.

  56. SamWhited

    Hints most likely need normative language to explain when they should and should not be used and what they mean, so I'm not sure a registry is appropriate (and one doesn't exist anyways)

  57. Link Mauve

    We voted for that a few weeks ago IIRC.

  58. Link Mauve

    (In version 0.11.0 fyi.)

  59. SamWhited

    Link Mauve: Right, and a few weeks ago I was for only having thigns in carbons and not in a separate document.

  60. Link Mauve

    So, two months ago we vote for making carbons depend on 0334 while keeping its legacy element, and now you are against advancing 0334 because carbons should be the only one using it?

  61. Dave Cridland

    SamWhited, I thought the idea with hints is that they could not be relied upon; they were advisory only.

  62. SamWhited

    Dave Cridland: Yah, but we still probably need language defining where and how they're used, and can't anticipate the need for future hints

  63. SamWhited

    Eg. "This hint MUST only be included on messages addressed to full JIDs and…" from the XEP.

  64. Tobias

    True...So this thing would never become Final in a sense

  65. Link Mauve

    SamWhited, wouldn’t that be worth a new XEP in this case?

  66. SamWhited

    Link Mauve: I don't recall; if I was for that at the time, I have since changed my mind.

  67. Link Mauve

    I had been wondering whether to add 0380 to 0334 or not when I first designed it, but opted against for that very reason.

  68. SamWhited

    Link Mauve: So we end up with "hints part 1: final", "hints part 2: experimental", and add more later?

  69. SamWhited

    then after hints part 2 becomes final we start on hints part 3 if new use cases arise?

  70. Link Mauve

    New hints will (pretty much always) require discovery, and you don’t want to bump the namespace of previous hints that require no changes, so imo a multi-part set of XEPs (not named that way ofc) would make sense.

  71. SamWhited

    I think it's the only way to do it *if* we have a hints XEP. If the hints just live where they'd be used (eg. MAM, Carbons), then it doesn't matter as much and you'd track them just like every other XEP that has elements that vaguely act as hints.

  72. Tobias

    can we take the rest of those discussion to the list?

  73. SamWhited

    Good plan; I'll vote on list before next meeting. In the mean time, feel free to convince me to not -1 :)

  74. Tobias

    so I suppose the rest will vote on list

  75. Tobias

    7) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: ISR-SASL2 https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/isr-sasl2.html as experimental

  76. Tobias

    I'll vote on list

  77. daniel

    me too

  78. Link Mauve

    Will also vote on list.

  79. Dave Cridland

    Needs Section 6 removing, which Flow has agreed to do (I think).

  80. Dave Cridland

    I also note the namespaced attributes.

  81. Dave Cridland

    So I'm -1 for *now*, but I think we'll resolve those quickly.

  82. SamWhited

    I would like to see Flow's rework based on the discussion that happened on list before voting. In its current form, I am not comfortable advocating for even experimental implementations, so -1

  83. SamWhited

    (long winded way of saying "What Dave said")

  84. Tobias

    4) Date of next

  85. jonasw

    question: what’s the time limit for votes on ProtoXEPs?

  86. Tobias

    suggestions? I think there'll be a DST change in between for EU people

  87. Tobias

    jonasw, 2 weeks

  88. jonasw

    I think ecaps2 is still pending a vote and has reached its 2 weeks time limit

  89. Link Mauve

    Tobias, haven’t we always been in UTC?

  90. SamWhited adds a trello due date… he just discovered (and really likes) Trello due dates.

  91. Link Mauve

    It was 16Z all along.

  92. daniel

    1600Z works for me. and if there is a timezone thing i'll just figure it out when the time comes

  93. Tobias

    right...then lthat would be 2017-03-29 16:00:00 Z

  94. Tobias


  95. Link Mauve


  96. Tobias

    er...that 4) should have been 8)

  97. Tobias

    9) AOB

  98. jonasw


  99. SamWhited

    Reminder of pending Votes; there's at least one missing from the clarify CSI/Carbons thing I think

  100. SamWhited

    Also ecaps2, which expires today

  101. SamWhited

    The due date is "before I get around to publishing it this after noon"

  102. Link Mauve

    SamWhited, CSI/Carbons was already vetoed, so no need to wait for the last one imo.

  103. SamWhited

    oh, right… nevermind.

  104. SamWhited

    Maybe Tobias really wants to convince us to change ourmind, or just express his support for it? :)

  105. Tobias

    also dave's vote on georg's change seems to be missing in trello

  106. Tobias

    SamWhited, huh?

  107. Tobias

    have I missed something?

  108. SamWhited

    Tobias: You're the missing vote on CSI/Carbons, but as Link Mauve said, everyone else -1'ed, so it doesn't really matter

  109. Tobias

    will vote +0 on that, but it doesn't matter as you ssay

  110. Tobias


  111. Tobias bangs the gavel

  112. Tobias

    thanks everybody

  113. SamWhited


  114. Tobias

    jonasw, thanks for writing up the minutes

  115. Tobias

    send them to counci@ and standards@ please

  116. Link Mauve

    Thank you. :)

  117. jonasw

    does anyone want to proof-read?

  118. Tobias

    jonasw, sure

  119. jonasw


  120. Tobias

    looks good to me

  121. jonasw


  122. Tobias