XMPP Council - 2019-09-25

  1. vanitasvitae has left

  2. vanitasvitae has joined

  3. daniel has left

  4. daniel has joined

  5. daniel has left

  6. daniel has joined

  7. lnj has joined

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. lnj has left

  10. Remko has joined

  11. daniel has left

  12. daniel has joined

  13. debacle has joined

  14. lnj has joined

  15. debacle has left

  16. debacle has joined

  17. lnj has left

  18. jonas’

    oh, it is the day again

  19. Ge0rG

    And there are PRs waiting for the Inbox.

  20. Link Mauve

    Oh right, I’ll try to be available but nothing guaranteed, my bus is at 6pm 25 minutes away from my current restaurant.

  21. Link Mauve

    I’ll try to be at some café at 5pm.

  22. daniel has left

  23. daniel has joined

  24. lnj has joined

  25. Remko has left

  26. Remko has joined

  27. Guus has left

  28. Ge0rG has left

  29. Guus has joined

  30. Kev has left

  31. Kev_ has left

  32. Ge0rG has joined

  33. Ge0rG has left

  34. Ge0rG has joined

  35. Kev has joined

  36. Kev_ has joined

  37. Ge0rG has left

  38. Ge0rG has joined

  39. Ge0rG has left

  40. Ge0rG has joined

  41. dwd has joined

  42. lnj has left

  43. lnj has joined

  44. jonas’

    'tis time

  45. Link Mauve


  46. Ge0rG .o/

  47. jonas’

    are we again without dwd and Kev?

  48. Ge0rG

    and without an agenda.

  49. Kev

    Kev's here.

  50. jonas’

    that’s at least something

  51. jonas’ shuffles the chair to Kev

  52. Kev

    Dave was just replying to Council stuff on-list, so I assume is about somewhere.

  53. wojtek has joined

  54. Kev

    Do we have things that need to be agendarised this week?

  55. jonas’


  56. jonas’

    edhelas just pointed at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824

  57. Kev

    There's a protoXEP too isn't there?

  58. wojtek has left

  59. Ge0rG

    Also JC split up the Retractions XEP into two inboxes

  60. jonas’

    I think we missed voting on the ProtoXEP

  61. Ge0rG

    The ProtoXEP from last week?

  62. dwd

    Here, sorry.

  63. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I haven’t taken care of those yet because I was without internet over the weekend

  64. Kev hands over to Dave.

  65. jonas’

    we also have got https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834

  66. Link Mauve

    Note: I will have to leave exactly at 17:30 CEST or before, to not be left behind in Hamburg.

  67. dwd

    Wife's birthday today, so I was makinge mother-in-law a cuppa.

  68. dwd


  69. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: Hamburg is a very nice place. Just use the Council Meeting as an excuse to stay.

  70. dwd

    1) Roll Call

  71. Ge0rG

    Full House!

  72. dwd


  73. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, that’s why I’m here. :D

  74. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  75. dwd

    Sorry for no agenda - work is extremely busy for me right now.

  76. jonas’

    dwd, to summarize what was writetn above: - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834 - tokens protoxep

  77. edhelas has joined

  78. jonas’

    dwd, to summarize what was writetn above: - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834 - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html

  79. dwd

    Ace, thanks.

  80. edhelas


  81. dwd

    3) Items for a vote:

  82. Ge0rG

    * Message retractions: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/832 * Message moderation: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/833

  83. dwd

    a) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/824

  84. jonas’

    Ge0rG, tohse cannot be voted on yet

  85. dwd

    XEP-0060: Add pubsub#public in Publish-Subscribe features #824

  86. jonas’

    they are not merged and have not been announced

  87. jonas’

    and at least one of them has a build failure

  88. Kev

    This feels like it'd also be blocked on similar grounds to the MUC one Dave just -1d.

  89. dwd

    I'm going to vote on-list on this, pending the outcome of a quick chat I'd like to have in AOB about how we do this kind of thing.

  90. Kev

    Although somewhat less so.

  91. Ge0rG

    dwd: "this kind of thing" - what kind of thing?

  92. jonas’

    dwd, I have a few words on that AOB

  93. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, adding new informative features to a main XEP.

  94. dwd

    Ge0rG, See note to list (or wait until AOB), but summary is that if we constantly add small things to big specs they get bigger and never progress to Final.

  95. dwd

    Ge0rG, Particular things in extensible forms, etc.

  96. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, see CAKHUCzxMJNt+oYc=+q=Pa7AYd5311oNE4s_zirUwNhykXNhvUg@mail.gmail.com

  97. Ge0rG

    pubsub#public looks like a breaking change to me.

  98. dwd

    Would anyone else like to vote?

  99. Kev

    Not at this stage, I think we need OtherDiscussion first.

  100. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, not if it is exposed with a disco#info-able feature on the service, which it doesn’t seem to do atm.

  101. jonas’

    yes, on-list

  102. Ge0rG

    on-list then

  103. dwd

    OK. Moving on.

  104. dwd

    b) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/834

  105. dwd

    XEP-0410: treat remote-server-{not-found,timeout} like timeout #834

  106. Wojtek has joined

  107. Link Mauve

    I’m +1 on this.

  108. jonas’

    +1 on that one

  109. jonas’


  110. Ge0rG

    As this is only a client behavior recommendation, I don't consider this a breaking change and thus I'm also +1 with my Council hat on

  111. dwd

    This seems sensible. I'm going to +1 on this.

  112. dwd

    Kev, What do you think about this one?

  113. jonas’

    this is also based on a real-world issue, https://github.com/horazont/aioxmpp/issues/312

  114. Kev

    I'm here and pondering.

  115. Kev

    I should probably +1 it.

  116. dwd

    Kev, Feel free to on-list if you need more pondering.

  117. Kev

    While being concerned that it illustrates the brittleness of all this sort of thing.

  118. Kev

    I think it is a breaking change, but I don't see how bumping anything would improve interop over not bumping.

  119. dwd

    Kev, Yes, all this stuff is a nightmare of heuristics that's a workaround for issues with MUC.

  120. Ge0rG

    Kev: the breakage doesn't affect anything but how a client treats incoming errors.

  121. jonas’

    there is no interop issue, because there’s nothing interoperating at that point of the "protocol", methinks?

  122. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes. I mean that a client compliant to 1.0.1 wouldn't be compliant to 1.1 - but as I say, I don't think bumping anything would be beneficial to anyone.

  123. jonas’

    define "compliant"

  124. dwd

    "does what the spec says".

  125. Link Mauve

    Also, there is no negociation here, so no bumping is required anywhere?

  126. jonas’

    interop issues require that one party is relying on behaviour of another party, right?

  127. dwd

    Although I think Kev means "conformant", really, since "compliance" is usually associated with some kind of testing.

  128. jonas’

    I don’t think that anyone can be relying on that client behaviour recommendation either way.

  129. dwd

    jonas’, The client is relying on those errors meaning what we think they mean in this case.

  130. dwd

    Kev, Voting or on-list?

  131. Kev

    How long would we like to spend arguing over my choice of words in approving this not being the choice of words people would have liked me to use in approving this?

  132. jonas’

    I wasn’t seeing a definite approval from you :)

  133. Kev


  134. jonas’

    just a "should probably", which is neither here nor there

  135. Ge0rG

    Kev: until you utter one of (-1, +1, on-list)

  136. jonas’


  137. dwd


  138. Kev

    I did utter +1, FWIW.

  139. Ge0rG


  140. Ge0rG blames network latency.

  141. dwd

    Kev, You said you probably should. I didn't take that as a vote, sorry.

  142. dwd

    c) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html

  143. jonas’


  144. dwd

    ProtoXEP: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/auth-tokens.html

  145. Ge0rG


  146. dwd

    I mean, ProtoXEP: XEP-xxxx: Authorization Tokens

  147. Link Mauve

    On list too.

  148. Ge0rG

    dwd: you can LMC ;)

  149. jonas’


  150. Kev

    This is the thing that happened while I was on holiday and the thread looked scary, right? :)

  151. dwd

    Ge0rG, [I'm never quite happy with doing LMC in meetings for anything beyond simple typos because of the record]

  152. dwd

    Kev, That'd be it.

  153. Kev

    I'll on-list this. I suspect this'll involve more thinking than I'd like.

  154. Kev

    (Unless Dave helpfully vetoes first)

  155. Wojtek has left

  156. Ge0rG

    Kev: you can't simply reuse somebody else's -1, you need to provide your own arguments.

  157. dwd

    In general, I'm vociferously against trying to define authentication pathways in the XSF. I do not believe we have the expertise, and I think it's a area where we should defer to the IETF (XMPP and/or Kitten Working Groups).

  158. Kev

    Ge0rG: Sure you can, you can just say "Make Dave happy" as the remediation.

  159. dwd

    Hence, -1. In addition, I think large amounts of this duplicate work in XEP-0399 - I appreciate there are differences, but I think it'd be better to work on '399 than introduce something entirely new but heavily overlapping.

  160. Ge0rG

    is it also overlapping with XEP-0397: Instant Stream Resumption?

  161. jonas’

    without voting officially (just for the record): I think that Dave is mostly right, but I’d like to take a look at '399 in this context myself before voting

  162. dwd

    Ge0rG, You can -1 a proposed XEP because it's my wife's birthday, if you like.

  163. Kev

    Ge0rG: Somewhat related, because of tokens.

  164. dwd

    Ge0rG, To some extent, yes. I noted that in my mail to the list, but mostly in relation to the HT-* SASL mech,

  165. Ge0rG

    dwd: In my opinion, the XSF, and the Council especially, is already in a sufficiently sad state, even without involving your wife.

  166. jonas’

    that reads mean

  167. dwd

    Anyone else want to vote?

  168. jonas’

    hasn’t everyone said "on-list" or "-1"?

  169. Ge0rG


  170. Ge0rG

    It was probably a bad comparison.

  171. jonas’

    everyone has

  172. Kev

    I'm going to on-list. I'll be of the same opinion as Dave on both counts, but still want to re-read it all first.

  173. Kev

    But I'm default to -1, because that's what I'll ultimately say.

  174. dwd

    OK, thanks.

  175. dwd

    5) Outstanding Votes

  176. dwd

    I think none of us have any, now? Although I've a holding -1 on Jonas's MUC thing, so I ought to get to AOB quickly...

  177. dwd

    6) Next Meeting

  178. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  179. Link Mauve


  180. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  181. dwd

    There's an MLS Interim WG meeting next week I'm attending (I'll report back). You're welcome to carry on without me.

  182. Wojtek has joined

  183. jonas’

    dwd, can you prepare an agenda?

  184. dwd

    jonas’, Maybe. Meeting's on tuesday as well, but I'll try.

  185. dwd

    7) AOB

  186. Wojtek has left

  187. Ge0rG

    dwd: re that MLS meeting; EU and German regulators are looking for suggestions on how to standardize interop between silo IM providers, including E2EE. I'd love to know whether MLS can be the vehicle for that, on a time frame of maybe two years

  188. dwd

    We seem to have a number of small additions to MUC and PubSub in particular which are, more or less, additions to a info form describing the node/room/etc.

  189. jonas’

    I think the first step we need to take is to bring our Registries in order. Much of what has been happening lately is covered by the registries, but we don’t have anyone maintaining them (I’m not even sure that there’s a build process and how it works and I’m scared of looking)

  190. jonas’

    dwd, I think the first step we need to take is to bring our Registries in order. Much of what has been happening lately is covered by the registries, but we don’t have anyone maintaining them (I’m not even sure that there’s a build process and how it works and I’m scared of looking)

  191. dwd

    Can we handle these via the Registrar, or small XEPs?

  192. Ge0rG

    dwd: first step would be to collect all the different additions that didn't make it to the Registrar, and to update all the registries

  193. Kev

    This feels like a registry thing to me.

  194. dwd

    Do we have someone who's acting as the XMPP Registrar?

  195. Ge0rG

    it is a registry thing, but the registry is broken for all practical matters.

  196. jonas’

    see above

  197. Kev

    It's the Editor, but we don't really have process.

  198. dwd

    Ah, quite. So no.

  199. dwd

    Do we flag this to Board and get them to find a volunteer?

  200. jonas’

    this is in dire need of fixing

  201. jonas’

    I don’t think we’ll find one

  202. jonas’

    what I’d need is a hackathon together with iteam to figure out what the current state is and how to fix it.

  203. Kev

    jonas’: The issue is largely technical isn't it?

  204. jonas’


  205. dwd

    OK, so we have two problems:

  206. dwd

    1) A broken registry system, and

  207. Kev

    I mean, the process as far as the XSF's concerned is that it's the Editor doing this.

  208. Kev

    But the Editor doesn't have the ability to do it.

  209. dwd

    2) Nobody to act as Registrar.

  210. dwd

    So, solutions:

  211. jonas’

    (I’d also like to mention that I have a deadline on 15:30 UTC)

  212. Ge0rG

    dwd: 3) a technical foundation probably not sufficiently automated for the task at hand, and maybe also an insufficient number of registry categories

  213. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I consider (3) as a part of (1)

  214. dwd

    jonas’, Noted. I need to keep this one short myself.

  215. jonas’

    so from my side (Editor hat), I could work with the following:

  216. Link Mauve

    I’m also going to have to leave about now, to move closer to the Stockholm XMPP Sprint.

  217. dwd

    How about I send a summary of the status to the members list and we see if we can find some volunteers to help get the ball rolling?

  218. Link Mauve

    (I’m also going to have to leave about now, to move closer to the Stockholm XMPP Sprint.)

  219. jonas’

    I set up a date with iteam where we work closely (low-latency, e.g. IM) on fixing this. that’ll involve looking into the current build system and how it’s wired to the web server and how we can get this running.

  220. jonas’

    I volunteer, but I need help from iteam.

  221. Kev

    I can probably help, as long as MattJ doesn't mind me interfering in his iteam :)

  222. dwd

    jonas’, That sounds great if you can find the time.

  223. jonas’

    dwd, it *does* look more promising at the moment

  224. Zash has joined

  225. dwd

    OK, this sounds like a good thing to try first.

  226. dwd

    And even better, needs no further action from Council or me. :-)

  227. dwd

    Anything else anyone needs to raise here?

  228. Ge0rG

    I have a number of large AOBs that I'm still carrying around from Meeting to Meeting

  229. Kev

    I've had a headache for about 4 days. I'm happy to not spend more time on this.

  230. Ge0rG

    a.k.a. NO

  231. dwd

    OK. In that case:

  232. dwd

    8) Ite, Meeting Est

  233. Kev

    Thanks all.

  234. Ge0rG

    Thanks Dave. Thanks all

  235. jonas’


  236. dwd

    Also, Ge0rG - I'm dashing off now, but could you drop me an email with your AOB things? Say a paragraph on each. I'm wondering if any might be addressed if we tried an open meeting, separate from Council.

  237. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'm sure I wrote that in the AOB part of one of our last Meetings. Maybe two months ago.

  238. dwd

    Ge0rG, You probably did, but I lack an issue tracker for these kinds of things.

  239. Ge0rG

    ah, it was 2019-09-04 according to the minutes mail 1. discuss what to list in CS-2020 "Future Development" 2. message errors, still. 3. probably something that's not relevant any more?

  240. Ge0rG

    dwd: https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2019-09-04#2019-09-04-e4670d04e03033cc

  241. Ge0rG

    I think the Attach-To AOB got obsoleted by Message Fastening.

  242. Ge0rG

    And the CS-2020 things were discussed in the linked meeting.

  243. Ge0rG

    At least a little bit.

  244. daniel has left

  245. daniel has joined

  246. sonny has left

  247. debacle has left

  248. debacle has joined

  249. dwd has left

  250. sonny has joined

  251. lnj has left

  252. Remko has left

  253. Zash has left

  254. Zash has joined

  255. Tobias has left

  256. Remko has joined

  257. Remko has left

  258. daniel has left

  259. debacle has left

  260. daniel has joined

  261. stassewicz has joined

  262. stassewicz has left

  263. daniel has left

  264. Zash has left

  265. daniel has joined

  266. sonny has left

  267. sonny has joined

  268. daniel has left