XMPP Council - 2018-03-28

  1. Kev

    Just 122 and 92 ending their CfE?

  2. Ge0rG

    Is it this time of the week again?

  3. Dave

    Hiya folks.

  4. Dave


  5. Dave

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

  6. Dave

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

  7. Dave

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

  8. SamWhited quickly goes to make a pot of coffee, but will be back in time hopefully

  9. Kev

    Quarter past we agreed on.

  10. Kev

    Ah, what Dave said.

  11. SamWhited

    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.

  12. SamWhited

    No more bus into the office at this time.

  13. Dave

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

  14. Kev


  15. Ge0rG

    I'm indifferent to that

  16. Dave

    So, shall we?

  17. Dave

    Oh, thirty seconds early...

  18. Kev


  19. Kev


  20. Dave

    1) Role Call:

  21. daniel


  22. SamWhited


  23. Dave

    Ge0rG, for the record?

  24. Ge0rG


  25. Dave

    2) Minutes

  26. Dave

    I'll do these this week.

  27. Dave

    3) Agenda Bashing

  28. Dave

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

  29. Dave

    Any objections to that?

  30. SamWhited

    No objection

  31. Kev


  32. Ge0rG

    Let's go

  33. Dave

    4) XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation

  34. Dave


  35. Kev

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

  36. Dave

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

  37. Kev

    Twas, yes. Let me check my cfe folder

  38. daniel

    another besides smacks?

  39. Ge0rG

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

  40. Kev

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

  41. Ge0rG

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

  42. Dave

    Ah, cool.

  43. Dave

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

  44. 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.

  45. Kev

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

  46. Kev

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

  47. SamWhited

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

  48. Dave

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

  49. Dave

    Anyone else with a vote?

  50. SamWhited

    … wait for it… wait for it…

  51. SamWhited

    I think we should deprecate it.

  52. Dave

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

  53. daniel

    I'm leaning towards +1

  54. daniel

    probably clean up the thing Kev mentions

  55. Dave

    Kev, Ge0rG SamWhited - votes, please.

  56. 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.

  57. SamWhited


  58. Kev

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

  59. Ge0rG

    +0 because of what Kev said

  60. Ge0rG

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

  61. Dave

    5) XEP-0092: Software Version

  62. Dave


  63. Kev

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

  64. Kev


  65. Ge0rG


  66. Dave

    Kev, :-P

  67. Kev

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

  68. SamWhited

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

  69. daniel


  70. 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.

  71. Dave

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

  72. jonasw

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

  73. Ge0rG

    wouldn't "if" violate the RFC?

  74. Dave

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

  75. jonasw

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

  76. Dave

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

  77. Ge0rG

    Dave: that'd be sane

  78. moparisthebest

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

  79. moparisthebest

    both of which could be done in existing XEP

  80. Dave

    6) Outstanding Votes

  81. Dave

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

  82. Dave

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

  83. daniel

    no will have to do that on list

  84. Dave

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

  85. Dave

    daniel, OK.

  86. SamWhited

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

  87. Dave

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

  88. Dave

    7) AOB

  89. jonasw

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

  90. Dave

    Anyone got anything?

  91. jonasw

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

  92. Kev

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

  93. Ge0rG

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

  94. Dave

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

  95. SamWhited

    ahh, yah, I had the same things as Ge0rG

  96. Kev

    I have yet to sort out the xep50 stuff.

  97. Dave

    Right. Makes sense.

  98. Dave

    Assuming no further AOB.

  99. Kev

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

  100. Dave

    8) Next meeting

  101. Kev


  102. Dave

    1500UTC Next Wednesday?

  103. SamWhited

    +1w - 15m WFM

  104. Kev


  105. Dave

    Ge0rG, daniel - OK with you?

  106. daniel


  107. Ge0rG


  108. Dave

    9) Ite, Meeting Est.

  109. Dave

    Thanks all.

  110. Kev

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

  111. jonasw

    Kev, but it’s not on the website yet

  112. Kev

    I know :)

  113. jonasw

    that’ll take another hour

  114. jonasw


  115. Zash cries over all the CPU cycles

  116. jonasw

    Zash, rightfully so.

  117. guus.der.kinderen

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

  118. Zash

    Timezones! DST! YAY!!!

  119. Dave

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

  120. jonasw

    Dave, <3

  121. jonasw

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

  122. jonasw

    that would address daniels concerns

  123. jonasw

    cc @ Ge0rG, SamWhited, daniel, Kev

  124. Dave

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

  125. jonasw

    Dave, I suspected that much

  126. 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.

  127. jonasw

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

  128. daniel

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

  129. jonasw

    so it’ll be NEW, but with 0.1.1

  130. 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

  131. jonasw

    (updated my XEP-0223 PR)