XMPP Council - 2017-04-05

Seems it's about time

1) Roll call

Here

Here

Here

Link Mauve, ping

Pong, here too.

great

2) Minute taker

i can do it

perfect...thanks

3) SHA-1 Migration plan update

Link Mauve, any news in that area?

Tobias, I have some AOB/Agenda, BTW.

noted

I started on that last week, I will send an email probably this weekend summarising the situation.

ok..great

4) Vote on advancing XEP-0334: Message Processing Hints Version 0.2

I'll vote on list

I'm on list for this, I need to catch up on the discussion.

On list too, I haven’t read the changes.

on list

SamWhited, you're voting on list too?

I'm a bit torn on this one; on the one hand, it's simple and it works, on the other, it's hard to discover and duplicates functionality from other XEPs (and includes functionality that should probably exist as part of other XEPs)

I'm leaning heavily towards -1, but am open to being convinced, so I suppose count me as on list.

okay...would be interesting to hear a more eleborate reasoning what it duplicates from other XEPs and what should be part of other XEPs on list

Didn't we already chat about this on list at some point? Either way, happy to write it up again.

5) Discuss deprecating privacy lists again

I kinda agree that every XEP should define it's own hints. like MAM should define store/no-store. carbons should define no-copy and so on

SamWhited, you were talking about Carbons’ <private/> IIRC, which was deprecated and put in 0334 instead.

however that's basically the opposite of what we have done in the last couple of years

as Link Mauve pointed out just now :-)

Link Mauve: Yes, I know, I have a bit of a problem with that; I don't know how I'm supposed to discover no-store or private or whatever if it's in another XEP grouped with some random unrelated stuff

yeah...seems there's no common agreement on where these hints should go

This magical thing called a hyperlink?

Zash, Not sure those will catch on.

I read XEPs on paper (no really)

SamWhited: This magical thing called a reference, listed at the bottom? :)

also the upcoming audio book version of the most popular xeps

and the feature films

Either way, the point is that now I have to have extra stuff for no real reason; it still feels like a discvverability issue

and it's namespaced differently, which feels weird and makes implementation harder (again, not by much, it's just "more stuff")

SamWhited, Carbons explicitly links to 0334, MAM too.

I'm aware

sure...but i guess we can best discuss this on the list then and hopefully find a quick agreement to either put them all in XEP-0334 and have other XEPs link to it, or put them directly in the other XEPs

I don’t understand the discovery issue.

I don't understand why we'd want a separate XEP with some random unrelated stuff in it

they are all related in that they are all hints, but i get your point

it would make sense if a certain hint is getting used by multiple XEPs

I agree, the discovery thing isn't a huge issue, it's a slight annoyance at most, but I don't see the upside to it.

which doesn't really seem to be the case

IIRC the concern originally was that other XEPs than Carbons may want to avoir copies.

indeed...but which hints are?

IIRC the concern originally was that other XEPs than Carbons may want to avoid copies.

That sounds like premature optimization (and I don't see the point in not just having each XEP have their own version of <private/> or whatever)

let's find that out and discuss on the list, so we can get on with the agenda

yup, yup, sorry. On list.

<no-store/> gets used by both XEP-0136 and XEP-0313.

5) Discuss deprecating privacy lists again

i think that was SamWhited's point

the annual discussion about deprecation XEP-0016

:)

well the mailing list discussion didn't come with a good reason to keep them

I don't think many people care very much either way.

I think the list discussion was pretty clearly leaning towards privacy lists being too complicated, but I may be biased. The arguments against deprecating it mostly felt hypothetical or could better be solved by something like invisibility (in the case of temporarily appearing offline).

the only reason i got from that discssuion is that it solves some users' problem, and they've implemented it. And it's the only standard way to disallow mesages from people not on your roster.

I think that's a bad thing that we shouldn't encourage, but if people do want that I'm sure someone will write a new protocol for it. If that's the only use case, you don't need somethihng as complicated as privacy lists to do it.

Well, we're not arguing that people MUST NOT implement or deploy it.

well it's not like the implementations will go away

right

it will just discurage new implementations

people can implement what they want

Let's deprecate.

which imho is a good thing

i guess we have to vote on that

6) Votes on Deprecating XEP-0016: Privacy Lists

+1

+1

+1

“16:17:37 Tobias> […] And it's the only standard way to disallow mesages from people not on your roster.”, there are other ways to do that, for example toggling that from an ad-hoc command.

+1

+1

great..that was quick

Great, no more annual discussion!

Link Mauve, "standard".

Dave Cridland, true.

🎉

Link Mauve, Nonsense, we could argue about undeprecating it next year.

^^

7) IEEE IoT

I've had a IoT SIG meeting with numerous attendees, basically just Rikard and myself :)

\o/

he cleared me about the IEEE WG whereabouts and so, and figured that some liasion would be helpful, thus i've taken that search to our iot mailing list in the hope to find a suitable person that's already a bit involved in the IEEE IoT activities...will follow up in that area and report back

8) Date of next

same time of day, next week, same day of week

Sounds good.

WFM

thats 1500Z?

yes

WFM.

9) AOB

Dave Cridland, you had one?

Yeah.

So Flow's SASL mechanism has been written up as an Internet Draft and published, but we wondered if a semi-formal statement from the XSF might help kick things off over there.

So we drafted this: https://pad.riseup.net/p/A_case_for_SASL-HT

that's for the kitten WG, or where do you plan to go with it?

Yeah, for kitten.

Sounds fine with me, but can XSF members speak for the XSF, or just the board?

XSF members can't speak on behalf of the XSF unless someone empowers them to do so. Council arguably can on technical matters.

I think we'll need Board sign-off. I can't ask the Board this evening, but I'll drop Ralph a line.

right...from the council technical side the mail sounds sensible, and the IETF is the right place for that stuff

any opinion on that from other council members?

Yeah. Comments (or indeed edits) welcome while we check with Board.

LGTM

okay then

any more AOB?

I don't understand why that mail is needed, given it's an individual submission?

Indeed, LGTM.

But anyway.

Kev, i don't see harm in sending it

Kev, Well, merely stating why it's useful to the XSF to have such a mechanism, and saying there'll be bodies to contribute.

My, perhapse unfair, impression of the IETF has always been that individual submissions are ignored unless you have a large organization backing you up. XSF may not be large, but it's a name they'll have heard of (maybe?).

Kev, FWIW, I agreed with Matt Miller (WG chair) that I would send something.

SamWhited, No, but they're difficult to promote without context.

I think it reads slightly oddly to say that it's an individual submission, that we're not influencing, but that it's the XSF that's submitted it. FWIW.

I'd be much more comfortable only having a Council member's name on that mail, FWIW, and leaving Flo's off entirely.

Otherwise you're getting into individual members speaking for the XSF territory, whereas Dave Cridland, XMPP Council on behalf of the XSF, seems preferable to me.

Especially as then you can note that it's Flo's submission.

Kev, Point taken, I'll rewrite it a bit.

that'd also sound fine with me...but you should take it to the board either way i think

as there doesn't seem to be further AOB, let's end the official part here

thanks everyone

Yes, sorry for slowing that down.

thanks daniel for writing up the minutes

I was distracting myself from writing up my expense claim from Brussels...