I think we just have the Advancement of XEP-0092 and XEP-0122, plus any outstanding votes from last week.
Dave
Any objections to that?
SamWhited
No objection
Kev
Newp
Ge0rG
Let's go
ralphmhas joined
Dave
4) XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
Dave
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
Kev
Following my review of this this morning, I kinda feel like it's close to being ready, but not quite.
jerehas joined
Dave
It's not actually clear to me it has the implementations. I know of only the one. Was another mentioned in the CFE?
Kev
Twas, yes. Let me check my cfe folder
daniel
another besides smacks?
Ge0rG
Multiple, but I would have wished for more details than just the name of the software
Kev
Smack. The one you mentioned. eyeCU/Vacuum-IM
Ge0rG
> At least in [1]eyeCU and [2]Vacuum-IM.
Dave
Ah, cool.
Dave
Oh, the one I'm thinking of might actually just be using Smack then.
SamWhited
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.
Kev
But looking at my comments, I suspected that the existing implementations are probably non-compliant because of a silly SHOULD in there.
Kev
Incidentally, I think 'implemented in a library but not used in a project' likely shouldn't count as an implementation, for our purposes.
SamWhited
Given the list discussion I'm with Kev: it's not ready yet.
Dave
So I'm feeling like a 0 here. I wouldn't actively support its Advancement, but I wouldn't block.
Dave
Anyone else with a vote?
SamWhited
… wait for it… wait for it…
SamWhited
I think we should deprecate it.
Dave
SamWhited, I'm quite fiercly against that. Actively used, and it's seeing value. Besides, we're not voting on that. :-)
daniel
I'm leaning towards +1
daniel
probably clean up the thing Kev mentions
Dave
Kev, Ge0rG SamWhited - votes, please.
Kev
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.
SamWhited
-0
Kev
So I'm -1 right now, noting that's a current-state rather than principle vote.
Ge0rG
+0 because of what Kev said
Ge0rG
I probably should ask Konstantin how exactly it is used in eyeCU
Dave
5) XEP-0092: Software Version
Dave
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
Kev
I'm not sure this has the implementations...
Kev
+1
Ge0rG
+1
Dave
Kev, :-P
Kev
(Letting Dave block himself for his security concern, which seems reasonable)
SamWhited
+1, this one seems relatively straight forward and I know I've used it before and found it strictly "good enough"
daniel
+1
Dave
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.
Dave
I'm guessing I'll need to do a patch myself with the wording, mind.
jonasw
Dave, what would be needed to fix that? make <version/> etc. non-required?
Ge0rG
wouldn't "if" violate the RFC?
Dave
jonasw, No, just note that it might give sensitive information, so implementations might choose not to respond.
jonasw
Dave, "not to respond" should be "respond with an error"
ralphmhas joined
Dave
Ge0rG, No, it responds with service-unavailable I assume.
Ge0rG
Dave: that'd be sane
moparisthebest
web servers usually let you set something custom there, or skip sending version
moparisthebest
both of which could be done in existing XEP
Dave
6) Outstanding Votes
Dave
So, looking at the Spreadsheet Of Doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AZ-Sna6OiRG--b-mJMKv3XXfrn3Nehm0kAtlyJvImL0/edit
Dave
daniel, Any votes here for last week's items?
daniel
no will have to do that on list
Dave
SamWhited, Ge0rG : I think you were unsure which, if any, of the XEP-0050 item to do?
Dave
daniel, OK.
SamWhited
I thought I had something, but my tab is empty so I still haven't done it, sorry about that.
Dave
SamWhited, Always possible I missed something, I can check logs.
Dave
7) AOB
jonasw
Dave, sorry, I haven’t gotten around processing XEP-0050
Dave
Anyone got anything?
jonasw
no wait, I’m confusing that with the pubsub thing, nevermind
Kev
Nope. I submitted IM-NG this afternoon, but it's not hit the inbox yet (only a few minutes ago)
Ge0rG
Dave: I 'onlist'ed because Kev wanted to sort out the PRs.
Dave
Kev, I was really hoping jonasw wouldn't get to that before the meeting.
SamWhited
ahh, yah, I had the same things as Ge0rG
Kev
I have yet to sort out the xep50 stuff.
Dave
Right. Makes sense.
Dave
Assuming no further AOB.
Kev
But everyone was encouraged to go read and understand the issue.
Dave
8) Next meeting
Kev
15:00Z?
Dave
1500UTC Next Wednesday?
SamWhited
+1w - 15m WFM
Kev
WFM
Dave
Ge0rG, daniel - OK with you?
daniel
yes
danielhas left
Ge0rG
OK
Dave
9) Ite, Meeting Est.
Dave
Thanks all.
Davehas left
Kev
You know, Jonas had merged IM-NG before the end of the meeting... :)
jonasw
Kev, but it’s not on the website yet
Kev
I know :)
jonasw
that’ll take another hour
jonasw
:)
Zashcries over all the CPU cycles
jonasw
Zash, rightfully so.
Davehas left
jerehas left
peterhas left
jerehas joined
Syndacehas joined
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
guus.der.kinderen
Could someone adjust the calendar item for the council meetings please? It currently is scheduled for now.
Zash
Timezones! DST! YAY!!!
Davehas left
Davehas left
Dave
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/616 by the way, jonasw.
jonasw
Dave, <3
SamWhitedhas left
jonasw
I’d merge the PR from JC before accepting the ProtoXEP if that’s fine with everyone?
jonasw
that would address daniels concerns
jonasw
cc @ Ge0rG, SamWhited, daniel, Kev
Dave
jonasw, Whichever - he's an author so it can be done whenever's cnvenient.
SamWhitedhas joined
Davehas left
jonasw
Dave, I suspected that much
SamWhitedhas joined
Dave
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.
jonasw
Dave, I was thinking of doing that, but eliding the first email
daniel
as long as we don’t publish and the forget about it i'm fine with both
jonasw
so it’ll be NEW, but with 0.1.1
Davehas left
ralphmhas left
Davehas left
jonasw
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