XMPP Council - 2017-09-20

  1. Tokodomo has left

  2. Tokodomo has joined

  3. Lance has joined

  4. Tokodomo has left

  5. Tokodomo has joined

  6. Tokodomo has left

  7. Tobias has joined

  8. Tokodomo has joined

  9. Zash has left

  10. Tokodomo has left

  11. Tobias has joined

  12. Lance has left

  13. vanitasvitae has joined

  14. Tokodomo has joined

  15. Tokodomo has left

  16. Tokodomo has joined

  17. Tokodomo has left

  18. daniel has left

  19. Zash has left

  20. vanitasvitae has joined

  21. daniel has joined

  22. daniel has left

  23. SamWhited has left

  24. daniel has joined

  25. Tokodomo has joined

  26. Tokodomo has left

  27. Tokodomo has joined

  28. Tokodomo has left

  29. Tokodomo has joined

  30. daniel has left

  31. daniel has joined

  32. Tokodomo has left

  33. daniel has left

  34. daniel has joined

  35. Tokodomo has joined

  36. Tokodomo has left

  37. jere has joined

  38. Tokodomo has joined

  39. Tokodomo has left

  40. Tokodomo has joined

  41. Tokodomo has left

  42. Tokodomo has joined

  43. daniel has left

  44. daniel has joined

  45. Tokodomo has left

  46. Tokodomo has joined

  47. Tokodomo has left

  48. Lance has joined

  49. Lance has left

  50. Tokodomo has joined

  51. Tokodomo has left

  52. SouL has left

  53. SouL has left

  54. ralphm has left

  55. ralphm has left

  56. ralphm has joined

  57. ralphm has left

  58. ralphm has joined

  59. daniel has left

  60. daniel has joined

  61. ralphm has left

  62. ralphm has joined

  63. daniel has left

  64. Tobias has left

  65. ralphm has left

  66. ralphm has joined

  67. Tobias has left

  68. daniel has left

  69. Neustradamus has left

  70. Holger has left

  71. ralphm has left

  72. daniel has left

  73. ralphm has left

  74. Kev has left

  75. Kev has left

  76. jcbrand has joined

  77. jcbrand has left

  78. jcbrand has joined

  79. ralphm has left

  80. jere has joined

  81. Tobias has joined

  82. jere has left

  83. jere has joined

  84. Tobias has joined

  85. ralphm has joined

  86. Tobias has left

  87. Tobias has joined

  88. daniel has left

  89. daniel has left

  90. Tobias has joined

  91. ralphm has left

  92. daniel has left

  93. Tobias has joined

  94. daniel has left

  95. daniel has left

  96. ralphm has left

  97. Neustradamus has left

  98. Neustradamus has joined

  99. Flow has joined

  100. jere has joined

  101. jcbrand has left

  102. jere has joined

  103. jere has left

  104. jere has joined

  105. jcbrand has joined

  106. Dave Cridland has joined

  107. Dave Cridland

    Are we meeting in a few minutes?

  108. Ge0rG has joined

  109. peter has joined

  110. Tobias

    i think so

  111. jonasw

    oh it’s wednesday

  112. daniel


  113. Tobias

    1) Roll call

  114. daniel


  115. Tobias

    SamWhited, daniel, Dave Cridland, Link Mauve, ping

  116. SamWhited

    I am partially here and will be fully here in a few minutes

  117. Dave Cridland

    Tobias: ?

  118. Tobias

    Dave Cridland, wanted to know whether you are there, for the roll call

  119. Tobias

    appears so

  120. Tobias

    2) Minute Taker

  121. Tobias

    any volunteers?

  122. Link Mauve

    Hi, I’m here too.

  123. daniel

    i can do it

  124. Tobias

    jcbrand, or are you available for it?

  125. jcbrand

    Yes, I'm available

  126. jcbrand

    Tobias, daniel ^

  127. Tobias


  128. Tobias

    3) Vote on accepting "Consistent Color Generation" as Experimental XEP

  129. Tobias

    I'll vote on list

  130. daniel


  131. SamWhited


  132. Tobias

    4) Vote on accepting "Jingle Encrypted Transports" as Experimental XEP

  133. Tobias

    I'll vote on list

  134. 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?

  135. Link Mauve

    3) +1

  136. 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.

  137. Link Mauve

    4) I’ll vote on list.

  138. Link Mauve

    (I haven’t read it yet.)

  139. Link Mauve

    (The new version.)

  140. jonasw

    (but don’t take only my word for it)

  141. SamWhited

    I'll just be on list then and ask first

  142. daniel

    on list

  143. SamWhited

    or double check the discussion

  144. Tobias

    5) Discuss removal of Groupchat 1.0 protocol from XEP-0045 ( request by jonasw )

  145. jonasw

    I was only proxying that request

  146. Dave Cridland has left

  147. jonasw

    the original request is from a discussion in the xsf@ MUC, I think dwd was present

  148. jonasw

    and maybe SAm

  149. jonasw

    but I can give some details if needed ( Ge0rG can too if he’s around)

  150. daniel

    jonasw: please do. I don't know what this is about

  151. jonasw

    okay, will do

  152. 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)

  153. jonasw

    (no reasonable way that is)

  154. jonasw

    then there was the suggestion to simply send presence to ensure that one is still joined

  155. jonasw

    the issue with that is that it could be interpreted as a Groupchat 1.0 join, which would not be desired

  156. jonasw

    from this originated the suggestion to remove that Groupchat 1.0 protocol entirely

  157. jonasw

    which would have the advantage that clients are safe against accidental Groupchat 1.0 joins when they desync

  158. 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?

  159. jonasw

    that’s mostly it I think

  160. peter

    Are there still clients that support "groupchat 1.0"?

  161. jonasw

    the argument was that Groupchat 1.0 does *most likely* not exist anymore anyways

  162. SamWhited

    Personally, I'm fine breaking compatibility with any clients that still support groupchat 1.0.

  163. Tobias


  164. Kev

    peter: Yes, implicitly.

  165. peter nods to Kev

  166. Kev

    Because the fact that a presence chengae will cause a rejoin after an S2S blip is remarkably useful

  167. daniel

    groupchat 1.0 join is a presence without the <x/>?

  168. jonasw

    daniel, exactly

  169. Kev

    If you removed that, suddenly lots of people wouldn't be in MUCs when they thought they were.

  170. jonasw

    Kev, is it? I think it’s not useful

  171. jonasw

    you’d want to specify the needed history instead

  172. Kev

    Anyway, this is a hack.

  173. Kev

    If you want to change xep45 to allow you to know if you're in the room, add an iq to that effect.

  174. jonasw

    getting a proper error back and then making a proper join with history etc. sounds more reasonable

  175. jonasw

    Kev, that was also discussed, but is a separate topic

  176. Kev

    Removing legacy joins is very much the wrong option here, I think.

  177. Tobias

    alright..do we want to continue that discussion on standard ML?

  178. SamWhited

    That sounds sensible.

  179. Kev

    That'd be the appropriate place, I think.

  180. Tobias


  181. jonasw

    good idea

  182. peter

    FWIW I agree with Kev.

  183. Tobias

    6) Consider advancing XEP-0387: XMPP Compliance Suites 2017 to Draft (added by SamWhited )

  184. Tobias

    Sounds sensible to me, i think we should issue a LC if other draft requirements are met

  185. daniel

    not sure if this is a blocker but the xmpp compliance suite requires the bookmark xep which can't be implemented right now

  186. 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

  187. SamWhited

    daniel: bookmark can't be implemented?

  188. daniel

    because it depends on pep functionality that doesn't exist

  189. daniel

    and which people don't want to have in pep

  190. daniel

    but it's fine with me if we start a last call on xep387

  191. daniel

    i can bring this up in the last call

  192. Link Mauve

    daniel, it could depend on the previous version, which was using 0049.

  193. Link Mauve

    Which is AFAIK how every client implements it.

  194. 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.

  195. Ge0rG

    Can we get MIX out of 387, then?

  196. Tobias

    sound sensible then

  197. Tobias

    so we're all in favour of issuing a LC?

  198. SamWhited

    MIX has been out of it for a long time (and I still think that was a bad decision, but I did it)

  199. Link Mauve

    SamWhited, also, why are the compliance suites standards tracks, instead of informational?

  200. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: ah, thanks. Didn't get that update.

  201. SamWhited

    Link Mauve: I'm not sure, they include 2119 language?

  202. Link Mauve


  203. 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

  204. Tobias


  205. Tobias

    7) Issue a new LC for XEP-0352: Client State Indication , based on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/427

  206. Tobias

    any objections to this?

  207. SamWhited

    +1 for LC

  208. Link Mauve


  209. Tobias

    i'm also +1

  210. daniel


  211. Tobias

    alright. Let's come to an end as we're already exceeding half an hour.

  212. Tobias

    8) Date of next

  213. Tobias

    Same time next week?

  214. daniel


  215. Link Mauve

    I won’t be here next week, I’m on vacations.

  216. Tobias


  217. SamWhited


  218. Tobias

    Link Mauve, happy to vote on list?

  219. Link Mauve

    Sure. :)

  220. Tobias


  221. Tobias

    9) AOB

  222. SamWhited

    None from me

  223. Tobias


  224. Tobias bangs the gavel

  225. Tobias

    thanks everybody

  226. SamWhited

    Good stuff; thanks all!

  227. Ge0rG

    Thanks council, I'll prepare a longer message regarding GC1 removal and self-pinging.

  228. jcbrand

    Tobias: Concerning the compliance suite, is it now going directly into Draft or first a LC?

  229. Tobias

    first LC

  230. SamWhited

    jcbrand: LC

  231. jcbrand


  232. Tobias has joined

  233. daniel has left

  234. Zash has left

  235. peter has left

  236. daniel has left

  237. jere has left

  238. jere has joined

  239. ralphm has left

  240. Flow has left

  241. daniel has left

  242. daniel has left

  243. ralphm has joined

  244. Lance has joined

  245. Lance has left

  246. Tobias has left

  247. ralphm has left

  248. jonasw has left

  249. ralphm has left

  250. daniel has left

  251. daniel has left

  252. jcbrand has left

  253. Lance has joined

  254. daniel has left

  255. daniel has left

  256. ralphm has joined

  257. daniel has left

  258. SamWhited has left

  259. daniel has left

  260. ralphm has left

  261. ralphm has left

  262. SamWhited has left

  263. ralphm has left

  264. Lance has left

  265. SamWhited has left

  266. SamWhited has left

  267. SamWhited has left

  268. ralphm has left

  269. ralphm has joined

  270. ralphm has left

  271. peter has joined

  272. peter has left

  273. ralphm has joined

  274. jere has joined

  275. jere has joined

  276. jere has left

  277. jere has joined

  278. Zash has left

  279. jere has left

  280. jere has joined

  281. daniel has left

  282. daniel has left

  283. daniel has joined

  284. ralphm has left

  285. Tobias has joined

  286. daniel has left

  287. daniel has joined

  288. SamWhited has left

  289. jere has left

  290. jere has joined

  291. daniel has left

  292. daniel has joined

  293. daniel has left

  294. daniel has joined