KevMigraine, so very likely not about this afternoon.
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rGLooks like I'll be in a train station at meeting time today, only equipped with my phone.
jonas’.
dwdAfternoon. This doesn't look promising, then.
Ge0rGI'd still like a meeting to happen, even if only for the sake of having a real meeting after two misses
pep.Link Mauve has been serverless for a few days. He might show up under a jabberfr jid, or not.
Ge0rGAlso my AOBs are still largely unresolved. I'm thinking of making message errors a first class citizen, and of The Right Way to reference messages.
Ge0rGpep.: maybe we need to send a push notification?
dwdOK, we'll give it a shot.
dwd1) Roll Call
pep.Ge0rG: he doesn't run android nor iOS
jonas’I’m here
Ge0rGpep.: send a direct message to his jabberfr JID please.
pep.(Nor any other OS that provides this kind of things, I assume. I'm gone now)
dwdOK, we have three, so that counts for Quorum purposes.
Ge0rGis there, more or less
pep.I poked him.
dwdSo we can hold a meeting if we want. Do we want?
Ge0rGdwd: are there any new things to vote on?
dwdWell, let's:
dwd2) AGenda Bashing
Ge0rGThe agenda is great!
dwdI didn't get to an agenda this week, sorry. I'm also unaware of anything in particular, though I believe there was soething in Last Call which has - presumably - become due for a vote.
jonas’yeah
jonas’no feedback though
Ge0rGDidn't we have something regarding jingle?
jonas’XEP-0300 and XEP-0353
Ge0rGIn LC, that is
jonas’yes, Jnigle Message Initiation (XEP-0353)
Ge0rGWas that the one where we requested feedback from the informal Jingle SIG?
Ge0rGjonas’: I had feedback on Table 1 in 0300
Ge0rGI'm not sure if that went to standards, though
jonas’other than that, I’m not aware of anything to vote on
dwdOK, so yes, indeed, both those Last Calls are long-since expired. We can do a vote on both.
dwd3) Current Activity
dwdI don't think we've anything currently in Last Call or anything? I did notice a bunch of updated XEPs though.
mathieuilink mauve is coming, fyi, I pinged him by sms
dwdjonas’, Anything of note here?
jonas’the official release of that new XEP
jonas’XEP-0421
jonas’XEP-0421: Anonymous unique occupant identifiers for MUCs
linkmauvehas joined
linkmauveSorry I'm late!
jonas’and obsoletion of the '18 compliance suites
dwdRight, thanks.
dwd4) Items for a vote.
dwda) XEP-0300 to DRAFT
Ge0rGOn list
jonas’I think I’m +1
dwdI think I'm +1 here.
jonas’unless Ge0rG tells me a good reason not to be with his Table 1 feedback ;)
Ge0rGjonas’: I think that table doesn't belong into 0300, but into an informational XEP or a registry
dwdGe0rG, I think the ideal solution would be to go register the names with IANA, actually.
jonas’Ge0rG, one could infer that table to refer to the registry which belongs to that xep
Ge0rGdwd: wasn't the reason for that table that IANA isn't there yet?
Ge0rGI'm not sure whether that table is subject to change, ever
dwdGe0rG, No, I think it was pure expediency.
Ge0rGIf it's guaranteed to remain as is, I'm +1 on the XEP.
dwdlinkmauve, Got a vote for us?
jonas’IANA has this: https://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml getting something in there seems.... tricky
jonas’requires an RFC updating 3279
linkmauveI haven't reviewed the latest version of 0300, I'll be on list.
dwdThat'll be why we went for expediency.
dwdMoving on:
dwdb) XEP-0353 to DRAFT
Ge0rGOn list
jonas’on-list with default to -0
dwdI'm +1 for this. Seems widely deployed and sensible.
Ge0rGjonas’: is there a specific reason for that default?
jonas’Ge0rG, there was no feedback on-list and I have no idea about jingle.
linkmauveSorry, I'm not used to phone keyboards.
Ge0rGI need to review it for MAM and Carbons side effects
jonas’I don’t think that me reviewing it will give me anything which helps me decide
jonas’dwd, widely deployed? I would’ve expected feedback in the month this has been in LC then.
dwdjonas’, Well, that's a matter of low energy and engagement.
Ge0rGEven a short message about it being widely deployed
Ge0rGXMPP Low Energy.
dwdlinkmauve, Any vote/opinion?
linkmauve0353 I'm on list too with a default of +1.
jonas’I’ll send a mail about that to the list.
dwdOK.
dwd5) Outstanding votes
dwdI think the previous ones have all now expired.
Ge0rGYes
dwd6) Next Meeting
dwd+1W?
jonas’wfm
Ge0rG+1W looks good on my calendar
linkmauveWait I have an aob.
dwdlinkmauve, Hang on.
dwdIt's not AOB yet.
dwd7) AOB
linkmauveAbout message retraction.
dwdlinkmauve, Uh-oh. Do tell.
linkmauveMultiple people noticed that the previous council forgot about it.
linkmauveIt has the same issues as reactions though.
dwd:-(
pep.Yeah, Ge0rG jokingly commented on that in xsf@
pep.(Or maybe it was serious? :p)
linkmauveAs in, message attachment is blocking it.
dwdI agree it's all an interesting mesh of issues. I'm not sure it's something for Council to do much with beyond evaluating a proposal.
Ge0rGdwd: what's the alternative for Council, then? Just reject everything with references, until someone comes up with The Right Way?
linkmauveOh, my connection will drop in a few minutes, I'm in the U-Bahn.
dwdGe0rG, Well, individuals on Council can propose something of course.
pep.If I may, from the floor, I would very much like to get these accepted before we figure out the answer to the ultimate question [..]
Ge0rGdwd: I think this is something where multiple council members might combine efforts to move things forward
dwdGe0rG, Well, sure, but it really doesn't have to be council members, is what I'm saying.
Ge0rGSomebody over in xsf@ even questioned the authority of Council members to reject a proto XEP on those grounds.
jonas’it is duplicating existing protocol
jonas’(in theory that would be an applicable reason)
jonas’I tend to agree with the general sentiment
Ge0rGdwd: yes, but currently there are some proposals (and their authors) blocked on this issue
jonas’can we reach out to the client devs who are invested in this and work closely with them to figure out a solution?
jonas’I mean they need to be on board anyways
dwdjonas’, Definitely. It'd be nice to get a bunch of them to agree on a solution. Maybe if they discussed it on a mailing list or a chatroom and proposed a XEP.
jonas’that’d be ideal
dwdjonas’, Do we have a mailing list or a chatroom people could use?
Reventlovhas left
jonas’and also get some of them to apply for council next term
jonas’dwd, I’m not sure if you’re being rhetorical here
pep.Standards@? jdev@?
Reventlovhas joined
Ge0rGI can only imagine that somebody who just got their first XEP rejected on formal grounds might not be very inclined to do the work required to resolve those formal issues
jonas’xsf@ even
pep.Or that
dwdjonas’, Either rhetorical or sarcastic. It's hard for even me to tell these days.
Ge0rGThe <s> tag stands for "serious".
Ge0rGCan I summarize this debate as "we have agreed to keep everything as is"?
jonas’I’ll reach out to them
dwdGe0rG, For what it's worth, I wanted to accept the Reactions one.
linkmauveIt's not that much of a formal issue, but a factoring issue.
dwdAnyway.
dwdWe're over time - anyone got anything to add before I close?
jonas’not me
dwd8) Ite, Meeting Est
Ge0rGplease on-list your opinion regarding message errors.
dwdGe0rG, You'll need to remind me on the details - was it broadcast in Carbons, etc?
dwdGe0rG, Only, I've got a use-case for sending them through MUC, now.
Ge0rGdwd: it was about that, yes. Also about putting errors into MAM and offline storage
Ge0rGI'm worried about the side effects of carbonated message errors on protocols I'm not aware of.
dwdGe0rG, Right. So my problem is to do with sending messages with out of band media, and wanting to clearly indicate to the sender if downloading the media failed.
Ge0rGFor MUC errors, Carbon-copying is certainly problematic
dwdGe0rG, No, not MUC errors, errors from messages passing through MUC. The current implementations would simply boot the user who sent the error.
Ge0rGdwd: yes, that's a different issue
dwdGe0rG, Yes, but I think it's related.
Ge0rGdwd: I'm not very sure about that.
dwdGe0rG, In as much as most entities are bad about generating and handling errors, and that's in part because of our stipulated handling.
linkmauvehas left
Ge0rGdwd: yes, but we are speaking of two orthogonal problems with the stipulated handling.
Ge0rGmaybe occupants should send errors and receipts via PM anyway?
dwdGe0rG, Absolutely. Same area, distinct issues.
dwdGe0rG, That's an interesting suggestion.
Ge0rGdwd: obviously not good for read markers, because somebody thought it's fancy to keep track of who read how much of what, individually.
dwdGe0rG, Yes... It's quite a way to amplify traffic though.
Ge0rGI wonder if you can trigger read-markers with empty messages.
Ge0rGBut then again, DoS on XMPP clients is as challenging as taking away candy from children.
dwdGe0rG, True. It's not about DoS, just efficiency.
Ge0rGdwd: sending a MUC-PM error is perfectly fine, unless PMs are forbidden by the MUC
dwdGe0rG, Do those go through?
Ge0rGI _think_ so
dwdGe0rG, I think they'd appear to be normal bounces (similar to a delivery failure) and thus kick the offending client.
Ge0rGLet's test.
Ge0rGdwd: I just sent you a message error PM. I hope
dwd[16:56:51] Ge0rG: Let's test.
[17:00:52] message
――――――――――――――――――――
[17:01:03] Ge0rG: dwd: I just sent you a message error PM. I hope
dwdThat's... Interesting.
Ge0rG<message to="council@muc.xmpp.org/dwd" type="error"><error type="cancel"><not-acceptable xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/><text xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'>This is a severe error.</text></error></message>
Ge0rGI wasn't kicked by either MUC or server.
Zashhas joined
Ge0rGdwd: what client was that, btw?
Ge0rGError> council@muc.xmpp.org/Ge0rG: cancel: This is a severe error.
...is what I get on self-PM
dwdGajim.
Ge0rGSomebody with a faster uplink should add PMs to https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Client_Test_Cases