XMPP Council - 2018-03-28

Just 122 and 92 ending their CfE?

Is it this time of the week again?

Hiya folks.

So:

a) I was off sick much fo the week (and in meetings solidly all day) so I failed to prepare an agenda.

b) The meeting is at quarter past the hour (in about ten minutes).

c) It is, AFAIK, just 122 and 92 for Advancement to Final, as far as I'm aware.

Quarter past we agreed on.

Ah, what Dave said.

Oh, although, I wasn't sure yet at the time, but I am now working from home so I can do on the hour now if people would prefer.

No more bus into the office at this time.

Oh, that's good. I prefer on the hour - mostly because it's easier to block out the time.

Same.

I'm indifferent to that

So, shall we?

Oh, thirty seconds early...

Here. ✏

1) Role Call:

here

o/

Ge0rG, for the record?

🙋

2) Minutes

I'll do these this week.

3) Agenda Bashing

I think we just have the Advancement of XEP-0092 and XEP-0122, plus any outstanding votes from last week.

Any objections to that?

No objection

Newp

Let's go

4) XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html

Following my review of this this morning, I kinda feel like it's close to being ready, but not quite.

It's not actually clear to me it has the implementations. I know of only the one. Was another mentioned in the CFE?

Twas, yes. Let me check my cfe folder

another besides smacks?

Multiple, but I would have wished for more details than just the name of the software

Smack. The one you mentioned. eyeCU/Vacuum-IM

> At least in [1]eyeCU and [2]Vacuum-IM.

Ah, cool.

Oh, the one I'm thinking of might actually just be using Smack then.

This one seems too complicated to me, I wouldn't block it from going to final on those grounds I don't think, since it's not likely to get simpler, but I probably would never implement it.

But looking at my comments, I suspected that the existing implementations are probably non-compliant because of a silly SHOULD in there.

Incidentally, I think 'implemented in a library but not used in a project' likely shouldn't count as an implementation, for our purposes.

Given the list discussion I'm with Kev: it's not ready yet.

So I'm feeling like a 0 here. I wouldn't actively support its Advancement, but I wouldn't block.

Anyone else with a vote?

… wait for it… wait for it…

I think we should deprecate it.

SamWhited, I'm quite fiercly against that. Actively used, and it's seeing value. Besides, we're not voting on that. :-)

I'm leaning towards +1

probably clean up the thing Kev mentions

Kev, Ge0rG SamWhited - votes, please.

I think we should advance it, but I think it should have another edit pass first. At least we should confirm whether any of the implementations are actually compliant with the probably-daft SHOULD.

-0

So I'm -1 right now, noting that's a current-state rather than principle vote.

+0 because of what Kev said

I probably should ask Konstantin how exactly it is used in eyeCU

5) XEP-0092: Software Version

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html

I'm not sure this has the implementations...

+1

+1

Kev, :-P

(Letting Dave block himself for his security concern, which seems reasonable)

+1, this one seems relatively straight forward and I know I've used it before and found it strictly "good enough"

+1

Indeed, I'm vetoing for security concerns. Interestingly, Matthew Miller told me that Cisco's implementation is very strict in how (and if) it responds.

I'm guessing I'll need to do a patch myself with the wording, mind.

Dave, what would be needed to fix that? make <version/> etc. non-required?

wouldn't "if" violate the RFC?

jonasw, No, just note that it might give sensitive information, so implementations might choose not to respond.

Dave, "not to respond" should be "respond with an error"

Ge0rG, No, it responds with service-unavailable I assume.

Dave: that'd be sane

web servers usually let you set something custom there, or skip sending version

both of which could be done in existing XEP

6) Outstanding Votes

So, looking at the Spreadsheet Of Doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AZ-Sna6OiRG--b-mJMKv3XXfrn3Nehm0kAtlyJvImL0/edit

daniel, Any votes here for last week's items?

no will have to do that on list

SamWhited, Ge0rG : I think you were unsure which, if any, of the XEP-0050 item to do?

daniel, OK.

I thought I had something, but my tab is empty so I still haven't done it, sorry about that.

SamWhited, Always possible I missed something, I can check logs.

7) AOB

Dave, sorry, I haven’t gotten around processing XEP-0050

Anyone got anything?

no wait, I’m confusing that with the pubsub thing, nevermind

Nope. I submitted IM-NG this afternoon, but it's not hit the inbox yet (only a few minutes ago)

Dave: I 'onlist'ed because Kev wanted to sort out the PRs.

Kev, I was really hoping jonasw wouldn't get to that before the meeting.

ahh, yah, I had the same things as Ge0rG

I have yet to sort out the xep50 stuff.

Right. Makes sense.

Assuming no further AOB.

But everyone was encouraged to go read and understand the issue.

8) Next meeting

15:00Z?

1500UTC Next Wednesday?

+1w - 15m WFM

WFM

Ge0rG, daniel - OK with you?

yes

OK

9) Ite, Meeting Est.

Thanks all.

You know, Jonas had merged IM-NG before the end of the meeting... :)

Kev, but it’s not on the website yet

I know :)

that’ll take another hour

:)

Zash, rightfully so.

Could someone adjust the calendar item for the council meetings please? It currently is scheduled for now.

Timezones! DST! YAY!!!

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/616 by the way, jonasw.

Dave, <3

I’d merge the PR from JC before accepting the ProtoXEP if that’s fine with everyone?

that would address daniels concerns

cc @ Ge0rG, SamWhited, daniel, Kev

jonasw, Whichever - he's an author so it can be done whenever's cnvenient.

Dave, I suspected that much

jonasw, I suppose I'd marginally prefer to publish the original and then publish the change immediately afterward to maintain the history, but it's not a hill to die on.

Dave, I was thinking of doing that, but eliding the first email

as long as we don’t publish and the forget about it i'm fine with both

so it’ll be NEW, but with 0.1.1

Dave, I don’t know how reliable github notifications are for you, so pinging you here too: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/608/commits/e18bb0387c3c13fe776ff6c96189bf41a0f12e62

(updated my XEP-0223 PR)