-
Dave Cridland
Are we meeting in a few minutes?
-
Tobias
i think so
-
jonasw
oh it’s wednesday
-
daniel
👍
-
Tobias
1) Roll call
-
daniel
here
-
Tobias
SamWhited, daniel, Dave Cridland, Link Mauve, ping
-
SamWhited
I am partially here and will be fully here in a few minutes
-
Dave Cridland
Tobias: ?
-
Tobias
Dave Cridland, wanted to know whether you are there, for the roll call
-
Tobias
appears so
-
Tobias
2) Minute Taker
-
Tobias
any volunteers?
-
Link Mauve
Hi, I’m here too.
-
daniel
i can do it
-
Tobias
jcbrand, or are you available for it?
-
jcbrand
Yes, I'm available
-
jcbrand
Tobias, daniel ^
-
Tobias
thanks
-
Tobias
3) Vote on accepting "Consistent Color Generation" as Experimental XEP
-
Tobias
I'll vote on list
-
daniel
+1
-
SamWhited
+1
-
Tobias
4) Vote on accepting "Jingle Encrypted Transports" as Experimental XEP
-
Tobias
I'll vote on list
-
SamWhited
I wonder if that TODO at the bottom means it's going to be split into separate XEPs, or just separate sections in this XEP? If new XEPs are coming anyways do we want to bother accepting it?
-
Link Mauve
3) +1
-
jonasw
SamWhited, from my understanding on the mailing list, vanitasvitae said he’d add more XEPs specifying how to use the JET framework with OMEMO etc.
-
Link Mauve
4) I’ll vote on list.
-
Link Mauve
(I haven’t read it yet.)
-
Link Mauve
(The new version.)
-
jonasw
(but don’t take only my word for it)
-
SamWhited
I'll just be on list then and ask first
-
daniel
on list
-
SamWhited
or double check the discussion
-
Tobias
5) Discuss removal of Groupchat 1.0 protocol from XEP-0045 ( request by jonasw )
-
jonasw
I was only proxying that request
-
jonasw
the original request is from a discussion in the xsf@ MUC, I think dwd was present
-
jonasw
and maybe SAm
-
jonasw
but I can give some details if needed ( Ge0rG can too if he’s around)
-
daniel
jonasw: please do. I don't know what this is about
-
jonasw
okay, will do
-
jonasw
the origin of the discussion was that currently there’s no way for a client to know whether it’s still joined (think s2s errors and other state desync)
-
jonasw
(no reasonable way that is)
-
jonasw
then there was the suggestion to simply send presence to ensure that one is still joined
-
jonasw
the issue with that is that it could be interpreted as a Groupchat 1.0 join, which would not be desired
-
jonasw
from this originated the suggestion to remove that Groupchat 1.0 protocol entirely
-
jonasw
which would have the advantage that clients are safe against accidental Groupchat 1.0 joins when they desync
-
Tobias
ähm...but just removing it from the XEP without incrementing namespace or so won't allow clients and rooms to apply that logic, will it?
-
jonasw
that’s mostly it I think
-
peter
Are there still clients that support "groupchat 1.0"?
-
jonasw
the argument was that Groupchat 1.0 does *most likely* not exist anymore anyways
-
SamWhited
Personally, I'm fine breaking compatibility with any clients that still support groupchat 1.0.
-
Tobias
ahh
-
Kev
peter: Yes, implicitly.
- peter nods to Kev
-
Kev
Because the fact that a presence chengae will cause a rejoin after an S2S blip is remarkably useful
-
daniel
groupchat 1.0 join is a presence without the <x/>?
-
jonasw
daniel, exactly
-
Kev
If you removed that, suddenly lots of people wouldn't be in MUCs when they thought they were.
-
jonasw
Kev, is it? I think it’s not useful
-
jonasw
you’d want to specify the needed history instead
-
Kev
Anyway, this is a hack.
-
Kev
If you want to change xep45 to allow you to know if you're in the room, add an iq to that effect.
-
jonasw
getting a proper error back and then making a proper join with history etc. sounds more reasonable
-
jonasw
Kev, that was also discussed, but is a separate topic
-
Kev
Removing legacy joins is very much the wrong option here, I think.
-
Tobias
alright..do we want to continue that discussion on standard ML?
-
SamWhited
That sounds sensible.
-
Kev
That'd be the appropriate place, I think.
-
Tobias
alright
-
jonasw
good idea
-
peter
FWIW I agree with Kev.
-
Tobias
6) Consider advancing XEP-0387: XMPP Compliance Suites 2017 to Draft (added by SamWhited )
-
Tobias
Sounds sensible to me, i think we should issue a LC if other draft requirements are met
-
daniel
not sure if this is a blocker but the xmpp compliance suite requires the bookmark xep which can't be implemented right now
-
SamWhited
I would like to start having compliance suites created and advanced by the beginning of the year (eg. 2018 suites would be created and a recommendation by January 1, 2018). I think a sensible place to start trying to do that would be to make sure the 2017 ones are advanced
-
SamWhited
daniel: bookmark can't be implemented?
-
daniel
because it depends on pep functionality that doesn't exist
-
daniel
and which people don't want to have in pep
-
daniel
but it's fine with me if we start a last call on xep387
-
daniel
i can bring this up in the last call
-
Link Mauve
daniel, it could depend on the previous version, which was using 0049.
-
Link Mauve
Which is AFAIK how every client implements it.
-
SamWhited
Sounds good; thanks. I think using pubsub at all for bookmarks is RECOMMENDED, so I'm not sure if it's a problem. We can discuss on list.
-
Ge0rG
Can we get MIX out of 387, then?
-
Tobias
sound sensible then
-
Tobias
so we're all in favour of issuing a LC?
-
SamWhited
MIX has been out of it for a long time (and I still think that was a bad decision, but I did it)
-
Link Mauve
SamWhited, also, why are the compliance suites standards tracks, instead of informational?
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: ah, thanks. Didn't get that update.
-
SamWhited
Link Mauve: I'm not sure, they include 2119 language?
-
Link Mauve
Hmm…
-
SamWhited
Anyways, +0 for LC (seeing as I'm the author) and we can discuss other things on list unless anyone sees a reason to block that really needs to be discussed now
-
Tobias
alright
-
Tobias
7) Issue a new LC for XEP-0352: Client State Indication , based on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/427
-
Tobias
any objections to this?
-
SamWhited
+1 for LC
-
Link Mauve
+1
-
Tobias
i'm also +1
-
daniel
+1
-
Tobias
alright. Let's come to an end as we're already exceeding half an hour.
-
Tobias
8) Date of next
-
Tobias
Same time next week?
-
daniel
wfm
-
Link Mauve
I won’t be here next week, I’m on vacations.
-
Tobias
wfm
-
SamWhited
wfm
-
Tobias
Link Mauve, happy to vote on list?
-
Link Mauve
Sure. :)
-
Tobias
alright
-
Tobias
9) AOB
-
SamWhited
None from me
-
Tobias
great
- Tobias bangs the gavel
-
Tobias
thanks everybody
-
SamWhited
Good stuff; thanks all!
-
Ge0rG
Thanks council, I'll prepare a longer message regarding GC1 removal and self-pinging.
-
jcbrand
Tobias: Concerning the compliance suite, is it now going directly into Draft or first a LC?
-
Tobias
first LC
-
SamWhited
jcbrand: LC
-
jcbrand
thanks