XMPP Council - 2017-12-13

  1. Kev

    Reminder that I've sent apologies for this afternoon.

  2. Ge0rG

    Without Kev and dwd, can we do anything today?

  3. SamWhited

    I thought dave said he'd be here but just couldn't prepare an agenda before hand?

  4. Ge0rG

    Ah, right.

  5. Ge0rG

    "should be able to attend" were the exact words

  6. Ge0rG

    I actually do have two questions to the other council members that I'd like to place today.

  7. daniel

    Shall we begin?

  8. SamWhited

    daniel: I think you just volunteered to run things

  9. daniel

    1) roll call

  10. daniel


  11. Ge0rG

    daniel: I'm there

  12. SamWhited

    I also am here

  13. Ge0rG

    ...for at least the next 50 minutes.

  14. daniel

    1) reconsider instant stream resumption / accept that as proto xep

  15. daniel

    anyone want to say something or should we just vote on this?

  16. SamWhited

    I will be on list as I don't remember this one very well and haven't had a chance to re-read it.

  17. daniel

    +1 from myself

  18. daniel


  19. Ge0rG

    I vaguely remember some question about the usefulness of this as opposed to 0198 and normal stream init, and challenges regarding token validity, so on-list

  20. daniel


  21. daniel

    i'm i guess a couple of LCs end today but it's not on the agenda so we should maybe move this to next time

  22. Ge0rG

    Are those the LCs that were initiated last week and MUST run for at least 14 days?

  23. daniel

    Ge0rG, well some XEPs have 12-12 in their headers like http upload for example. but either way; we'll move that to next week

  24. daniel

    3) vote on xep-0060 publish-options changes

  25. Ge0rG

    I'd actually like to hear more from the senior folks regarding the 0060 changes.

  26. SamWhited

    Which one is this? Didn't you make several alternative PRs for 0060?

  27. daniel

    i've proposed three different PRs 555-557 where I personally think 557 is the most reasonable one. so i'd suggest we vote on that one first and if that doesn't get consensus we fall back to to voting on 555

  28. Ge0rG

    While I'm pretty sure we covered well the OSS implementations' feedback, maybe there are 0060 implementations we don't know about that would be broken by this.

  29. Ge0rG

    and maybe the missing council members do know more.

  30. daniel

    SamWhited, #557 is rendered here. https://gultsch.de/files/xep-0060.html#publisher-publish-options

  31. SamWhited

    Sorry, just went back and reminded myself which was which. I also liked 557

  32. daniel

    but yes maybe we should wait for some more list discussion

  33. Ge0rG

    I've got no first-hand experience, and I'm obviously biased because I helped write the wording in #557

  34. daniel

    4) Ge0rG's question to council

  35. daniel

    go ahead

  36. Ge0rG

    a) do we have any (proto) XEPs to enroll new accounts with a token / invitation code / similar things?

  37. SamWhited

    Not that I'm aware of, but I have considered writing something as a challenge on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0389.html

  38. SamWhited

    *something similar

  39. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: what's the status of 389? marc and I are working on extending PARS to account-invitation-tokens kind-of-thing

  40. Ge0rG

    and my question b) would be: is it legitimate to have a server-capability-indicated way to extend the IBR form with additional fields, which are not data-form fields?

  41. Ge0rG

    i.e. I want the client to initiate regular IBR with a token, so that the server can immediately validate the token and accept the request, instead of presenting a data-form

  42. daniel

    is this a question to council? shouldn't this be a on list discussion between you and the author?

  43. SamWhited

    Yah, let's discuss afterwards

  44. daniel


  45. daniel

    5) date of next

  46. Ge0rG

    okay to move on then

  47. SamWhited

    +1 week WFM

  48. daniel

    i'm gonna be on a train w/o wifi next wednesday

  49. SamWhited

    Maybe we should settle on a new time on list then to make sure the people who aren't here this week don't have conflicts if we move it.

  50. Ge0rG

    +1w WFM

  51. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: sounds good

  52. daniel


  53. daniel

    6) anything else?

  54. daniel

    ok. doesn't look like it.

  55. daniel

    thank you and please comment on list regarding the time for next time

  56. Ge0rG

    daniel: thank you!

  57. SamWhited

    Thanks daniel

  58. Ge0rG

    Did we have a note taker?

  59. daniel

    yes me

  60. Ge0rG

    daniel: thanks again!

  61. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: I'm stepping out briefly, but will be around today if you want to discuss IBR2 and your token thing. Feel free to ping me and I'll respond "soon".

  62. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: TL;DR, xmpp:user@host?;preauth=TOKEN;ibr - the "ibr" is a tag indicating that the TOKEN can be used for IBR authentication, even if generic IBR is disabled

  63. Ge0rG

    if a client does IBR with TOKEN piggy-backed somehow, the server will auto-subscribe the new account to the inviter.

  64. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: I'm not aware of a spec already doing something like that, but that was the type of thing that IBR2 was designed to allow.