-
Kev
Reminder that I've sent apologies for this afternoon.
-
Ge0rG
Without Kev and dwd, can we do anything today?
-
SamWhited
I thought dave said he'd be here but just couldn't prepare an agenda before hand?
-
Ge0rG
Ah, right.
-
Ge0rG
"should be able to attend" were the exact words
-
Ge0rG
I actually do have two questions to the other council members that I'd like to place today.
-
daniel
Shall we begin?
-
SamWhited
daniel: I think you just volunteered to run things
-
daniel
1) roll call
-
daniel
Ge0rG?
-
Ge0rG
daniel: I'm there
-
SamWhited
I also am here
-
Ge0rG
...for at least the next 50 minutes.
-
daniel
1) reconsider instant stream resumption / accept that as proto xep
-
daniel
anyone want to say something or should we just vote on this?
-
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.
-
daniel
+1 from myself
-
daniel
Ge0rG?
-
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
-
daniel
ok
-
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
-
Ge0rG
Are those the LCs that were initiated last week and MUST run for at least 14 days?
-
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
-
daniel
3) vote on xep-0060 publish-options changes
-
Ge0rG
I'd actually like to hear more from the senior folks regarding the 0060 changes.
-
SamWhited
Which one is this? Didn't you make several alternative PRs for 0060?
-
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
-
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.
-
Ge0rG
and maybe the missing council members do know more.
-
daniel
SamWhited, #557 is rendered here. https://gultsch.de/files/xep-0060.html#publisher-publish-options
-
SamWhited
Sorry, just went back and reminded myself which was which. I also liked 557
-
daniel
but yes maybe we should wait for some more list discussion
-
Ge0rG
I've got no first-hand experience, and I'm obviously biased because I helped write the wording in #557
-
daniel
4) Ge0rG's question to council
-
daniel
go ahead
-
Ge0rG
a) do we have any (proto) XEPs to enroll new accounts with a token / invitation code / similar things?
-
SamWhited
Not that I'm aware of, but I have considered writing something as a challenge on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0389.html
-
SamWhited
*something similar
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: what's the status of 389? marc and I are working on extending PARS to account-invitation-tokens kind-of-thing
-
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?
-
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
-
daniel
is this a question to council? shouldn't this be a on list discussion between you and the author?
-
SamWhited
Yah, let's discuss afterwards
-
daniel
ok
-
daniel
5) date of next
-
Ge0rG
okay to move on then
-
SamWhited
+1 week WFM
-
daniel
i'm gonna be on a train w/o wifi next wednesday
-
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.
-
Ge0rG
+1w WFM
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: sounds good
-
daniel
ok
-
daniel
6) anything else?
-
daniel
ok. doesn't look like it.
-
daniel
thank you and please comment on list regarding the time for next time
-
Ge0rG
daniel: thank you!
-
SamWhited
Thanks daniel
-
Ge0rG
Did we have a note taker?
-
daniel
yes me
-
Ge0rG
daniel: thanks again!
-
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".
-
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
-
Ge0rG
if a client does IBR with TOKEN piggy-backed somehow, the server will auto-subscribe the new account to the inviter.
-
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.