XMPP Council - 2020-01-15

  1. blackbook has left
  2. daniel has joined
  3. vaulor has joined
  4. daniel has left
  5. daniel has joined
  6. blackbook has joined
  7. blackbook has left
  8. moparisthebest has left
  9. moparisthebest has joined
  10. blackbook has joined
  11. blackbook has left
  12. blackbook has joined
  13. blackbook has left
  14. blackbook has joined
  15. daniel has left
  16. blackbook has left
  17. stpeter has joined
  18. daniel has joined
  19. susmit88 has left
  20. daniel has left
  21. susmit88 has joined
  22. susmit88 has left
  23. susmit88 has joined
  24. daniel has joined
  25. daniel has left
  26. susmit88 has left
  27. susmit88 has joined
  28. vaulor has left
  29. daniel has joined
  30. daniel has left
  31. paul has left
  32. susmit88 has left
  33. susmit88 has joined
  34. daniel has joined
  35. susmit88 has left
  36. susmit88 has joined
  37. blackbook has joined
  38. blackbook has left
  39. vaulor has joined
  40. stpeter has left
  41. susmit88 has left
  42. susmit88 has joined
  43. daniel has left
  44. daniel has joined
  45. daniel has left
  46. susmit88 has left
  47. susmit88 has joined
  48. Tobias has joined
  49. blackbook has joined
  50. blackbook has left
  51. daniel has joined
  52. paul has joined
  53. daniel has left
  54. susmit88 has left
  55. susmit88 has joined
  56. daniel has joined
  57. daniel has left
  58. susmit88 has left
  59. susmit88 has joined
  60. daniel has joined
  61. hichamel has joined
  62. daniel has left
  63. daniel has joined
  64. susmit88 has left
  65. susmit88 has joined
  66. daniel has left
  67. susmit88 has left
  68. daniel has joined
  69. susmit88 has joined
  70. blackbook has joined
  71. Ge0rG jonas’: I'd like to AOB the 0401 PR
  72. Ge0rG But only if I can make it to the meeting, which still isn't ensured
  73. ralphm If you propose an item before the meeting, is it really AOB? 🤔
  74. sonny has left
  75. blackbook has left
  76. hichamel has left
  77. Ge0rG ralphm: it's after the agenda announcement, so I have no idea
  78. daniel has left
  79. daniel has joined
  80. sonny has joined
  81. undefined has left
  82. undefined has joined
  83. susmit88 has left
  84. susmit88 has joined
  85. susmit88 has left
  86. susmit88 has joined
  87. blackbook has joined
  88. blackbook has left
  89. sonny has left
  90. sonny has joined
  91. Remko has joined
  92. debacle has joined
  93. sonny has left
  94. sonny has joined
  95. larma has left
  96. susmit88 has left
  97. susmit88 has joined
  98. larma has joined
  99. debacle has left
  100. susmit88 has left
  101. susmit88 has joined
  102. debacle has joined
  103. blackbook has joined
  104. blackbook has left
  105. Remko has left
  106. Remko has joined
  107. sonny has left
  108. Wojtek has joined
  109. Remko has left
  110. sonny has joined
  111. sonny has left
  112. sonny has joined
  113. susmit88 has left
  114. susmit88 has joined
  115. blackbook has joined
  116. blackbook has left
  117. stpeter has joined
  118. blackbook has joined
  119. blackbook has left
  120. blackbook has joined
  121. stpeter has left
  122. stpeter has joined
  123. blackbook has left
  124. daniel has left
  125. blackbook has joined
  126. daniel has joined
  127. pep. I'd like to bring this PR to council's attention before the meeting: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/878
  128. stpeter has left
  129. blackbook has left
  130. sonny has left
  131. stpeter has joined
  132. susmit88 has left
  133. blackbook has joined
  134. jonas’ I don’t see how that new wording makes any sense whatsoever
  135. jonas’ that’s like saying "That’s not a tree" while pointing at a tree
  136. sonny has joined
  137. jonas’ but I’ll bring it up in the discussion, thanks for reminding me
  138. blackbook has left
  139. blackbook has joined
  140. sonny has left
  141. blackbook has left
  142. blackbook has joined
  143. blackbook has left
  144. blackbook has joined
  145. stpeter has left
  146. blackbook has left
  147. Zash Waiting for a bus, might have high latency during the meeting
  148. Ge0rG I'm sitting at a real computer, looking at my XMPP client, and there are no distractions.
  149. sonny has joined
  150. Ge0rG The only potential problem is my android phone disabling the tethering all the time.
  151. Ge0rG Also looks like I was able to catch up with the vote from two weeks ago, just in time
  152. jonas’ Zash, relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXiB5n883I
  153. jonas’ ("Waiting for the Bus")
  154. Zash https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/uOoLXd1YSjadWCB9/XQrNMK3tQ--tHE9oRwngNg.jpg
  155. Zash Snow!
  156. jonas’ Zash, bring some
  157. jonas’ we haven’t had any snow yet this winter :(
  158. Ge0rG it's 14°C where I am.
  159. Ge0rG on the outside, not in the room.
  160. ralphm But we still call it "winter".
  161. Ge0rG only by convention.
  162. stpeter has joined
  163. jonas’ ’tis time
  164. jonas’ sorry
  165. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  166. Ge0rG ,o/
  167. daniel i’m here
  168. Zash has left
  169. Zash has joined
  170. Zash It rained earlier and yesterday
  171. Zash I hope that at least melted most of the thick ice covering everything
  172. jonas’ to make it a even smoother layer of ice? ;)
  173. jonas’ okay, three to four out of five, that’s good enough
  174. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  175. jonas’ We’ve got "something about OMEMO", and a pre-AOB by Ge0rG. Anything else?
  176. Zash Here, reconnected
  177. Ge0rG jonas’: #878
  178. pep. SIG-E2EE?
  179. jonas’ Ge0rG, part of OMEMO
  180. jonas’ pep., SIG-E2EE started voting last week
  181. jonas’ so that’s part of "outstanding votes"
  182. pep. right
  183. jonas’ okay, let’s dive right in
  184. jonas’ 3) Items for voting
  185. jonas’ 3a) Something about OMEMO Last week, the council expressed a desire to do something to explicitly demote the current OMEMO XEP. Options which floated the room, IIRC, were: - Propose and then (most likely) Reject - Change track to Historical - Change track to Informational and set to Obsoleted
  186. pep. This is assuming a take over of the authorship by council?
  187. jonas’ no need to
  188. jonas’ though that’d be a detail we can discuss
  189. jonas’ We don’t have voting tools to decide on either way. I think Informational/Obsoleted would be what I prefer though.
  190. daniel people have come forward (including myself) with the sort of promise to produce a revised omemo spec until begining/mid februrary. if we now vote on moving omemo to a state that we can’t get it out of we are forcing them to create a new XEP
  191. jonas’ daniel, I think that’s actually desirable.
  192. ralphm I don't see how it is Informational, though, and Obsoleted implies that it has been Active before.
  193. jonas’ ralphm, it’s informational, because it’s deployed in a major share of software *right now*
  194. Zash So are some historical things, no?
  195. pep. Why is it desirable to create a new XEP? OMEMO is still experimental
  196. ralphm jonas’, well, it is also Experimental, so changes are a natural thing there.
  197. blackbook has joined
  198. dwd Sorry for the lateness! Busy day in work.
  199. jonas’ pep., because of the exceptional high degree of deployment. Discovering individual XEP versions is still a PITA, and it needs a major version bump
  200. jonas’ but then again, I don’t have a strong opinion in which way we demote it
  201. daniel i'm torn on whether or not newmemo (working title) should have a new number; i see both sides of the argument
  202. pep. Seems to me like we are setting a precedent for lots of things here.
  203. jonas’ daniel, it needs a new number and a new (technical) name, IMO
  204. jonas’ otherwise this is going to cause lots of confusion
  205. daniel i might actually be beneficial that omemo is still discoverable w/o going to the attic
  206. daniel *it
  207. ralphm jonas’ why not Rejected, then?
  208. jonas’ be it OMEMO 2.0 or something else
  209. jonas’ ralphm, I’m fine with rejected. I said something to get the discussion started.
  210. Kev jonas’: There is a counter-argument, which is that 'fixing' OMEMO under the OMEMO name might help matters of future adoption, as anyone implementing the Experimental XEP would have expected to need to update in the future.
  211. ralphm Kev: I like that
  212. jonas’ Kev, also a valid point
  213. pep. Isn't that what the experimental status is for
  214. pep. Experiment.
  215. ralphm pep., it is
  216. ralphm in fact, we started it out being based on OLM
  217. jonas’ so what do we want to have as procedure here?
  218. pep. Not rush the whole thing
  219. dwd Reading back through the original discussion, the plan was indeed to alter it in-situ after having got a version to point to which had the deployed design.
  220. pep. For a start
  221. daniel there is also the counter counter argument that it weakens the omemo brand
  222. daniel by having incompatible stuff out there
  223. jonas’ Proposal: - We issue an LC. Due to the expected amount of discussion, we give it 3 weeks or so. - After the LC, it’s beginning of Feb - The new-OMEMO team either has a rough draft for new-OMEMO by that time, or we go with rejection
  224. ralphm jonas’, Council can deem it not ready for advancement for the arguments presented over the course of the last two weeks, and then advise it being revised to not depend on libsignal
  225. Kev dwd: ISTR this is why the 'roll-back' to signal was allowed by Council in the first place - that it was to be followed by 'fixing' it.
  226. dwd Kev, Exactly that.
  227. daniel why a LC?
  228. jonas’ daniel, to be able to go to Rejected from there as per XEP-0001
  229. ralphm daniel, good question. I don't expect new arguments going forward.
  230. jonas’ daniel, also, this can bring in more feedback from the wider community
  231. dwd I'm a little unsure of a LC myself - it cannot advance along the Standards Track, so an LC is really only useful as a process workaround.
  232. jonas’ I expect new-OMEMO to not only fix the licensing issues, but also possible other issues in the OMEMO stack
  233. Kev From pride of place in the peanut gallery, LCing here seems to be creating more heat than light. Why not wait a few weeks for the next version of OMEMO to start taking shape, and can work things out from there?
  234. blackbook has left
  235. jonas’ I think possible additional feedback into the new-OMEMO process from the community wouldn’t be a bad thing.
  236. Kev The only reason for the urgency that I can see is that our IPR process says that we should be moving to replace it because it's encumbered, and we'd be doing that.
  237. ralphm Following Section 7 of XEP-0001, dwd kinda proposed this XEP, and Council can decide it is not ready right now.
  238. pep. "The new-OMEMO team either has a rough draft for new-OMEMO by that time, or we go with rejection" I personally don't like this. This is being rushed because this whole drama started. They're not paid to do anything about it, and I don't think they've planned to meet before the arbitrary dates you just set
  239. daniel jonas’, i think we (whoever 'we' is in that context) have enough feedback; now it just needs people to process that feedback and produce a working spec
  240. jonas’ pep., the dates are arbitrary, and not fixed. this is about the concept
  241. dwd pep., There has been over two years, in fairness - hardly a rush.
  242. jonas’ pep., and *again*, exactly what dwd says.
  243. jonas’ daniel, fair
  244. ralphm Kev: I saw an argument that this might only hold for stuff that has progressed beyond Experimental. I'm willing to bend on that point.
  245. pep. you mean the act of shutting it down is not rushed?
  246. dwd Do we want to ensure that the XSF publishes a findable copy of OMEMO as-is in the future? This was a requirement of the original compromise.
  247. jonas’ ralphm, this is off-topic, but I meant to reply on that with a differing opinion
  248. pep. When has council ever reminded the author/community about the issue?
  249. Kev dwd: That's already happened because of the versioning, hasn't it?
  250. larma jonas’, to be fair, discussions about "newmemo" have been ongoing for some time already, there just are no visible results yet
  251. jonas’ pep., it’s not our job to remind everyone
  252. jonas’ Kev, our versioning is most certainly not discoverable
  253. Kev ralphm: That isn't my reading, FWIW, although I think in this case it shouldn't matter.
  254. dwd Kev, That was indeed the original idea. My question is more whether we still feel that's sufficient.
  255. larma < 2 years is not a lot when it comes to designing a crypto protocol (especially as noone involved is paid for doing this)
  256. jonas’ Kev, it is very bound to the suboptimal rules in XEP-0001 making it hard to see what’s going on in the revision history, but that’s a topic for a difefrent day
  257. jonas’ larma, I sure hope we’re not designing a crypto protocol from scratch
  258. Kev From my non-voting point of view the most important thing is that there is a plan for resolving the mess, and that it seems OMEMO-as-is in someway sunset. I think the nature of XEP numbers is less important than that.
  259. dwd jonas’, I'm sure that's not what larma means.
  260. Ge0rG can't we postpone this question until we get somw feedback from the yet-to-be-founded SIG-E2EE?
  261. ralphm Well, the current state is Deferred. If somebody wants to take it out, either with the work that was labeled OMEMO:2, or Proposing it as is, Council is bound to act. So the question now is, is the current spec as published a problem.
  262. larma it would already be rushing to request all the things that are noted to be written down in 3 months if everyone agreed that this is eveything to consider (and yes, new ideas and things popped up within the last two years repeatedly)
  263. ralphm (regarding Objective 4 and our IPR Policy)
  264. dwd ralphm, For me, yes, in as much as it's on the Standards Track.
  265. dwd ralphm, Which seems to show intent.
  266. ralphm dwd: I agree, to be sure.
  267. jonas’ Okay.
  268. pep. I don't think it's a problem as noted by larma on the list. the XEP is experimental and §3.2 of the IPR explicitely states "after approval the XEP must not [..]"
  269. pep. which is used in 0001 to mean Draft.
  270. Kev Can I suggest that as a minimum, it would be sane to explain that the current XEP (at the top of the XEP) is encumbered, can't advance in our standards process as-is, and that the XSF is looking to replace it? That would satisfy our own policy at least.
  271. jonas’ The situation obviously changed since -7d. So I propose that we let this rest until some time shortly after Summit and revisit then.
  272. dwd jonas’, How has it changed?
  273. larma Kev, that's pretty much what https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/878 does no?
  274. jonas’ The situation obviously changed since -7d. So I propose that we let the attempt to move OMEMO into a final-obsoleted state rest until some time shortly after Summit and revisit then.
  275. ralphm Kev: I like that
  276. jonas’ dwd, the clear statement of people actively working on newomemo is new
  277. jonas’ (to me either way)
  278. jonas’ larma, right, #878
  279. Kev larma: I think 878 is saying "This isn't signal, honest. We'll call it signal, but we totally don't mean it.".
  280. ralphm Given that daniel made the last significant change, can we consider him the Author?
  281. jonas’ I think 878 is about as non-sensical as saying "This is not a tree" while pointing at a tree and does nothing good.
  282. pep. jonas’, agreed, I also don't like the lack of transparency around newmemo
  283. larma Kev, it's also saying it's not supposed to mean signal in the future, no?
  284. ralphm I think #878 makes matters worse.
  285. Kev larma: That bit, yes.
  286. Ge0rG I agree with ralphm on #878, it's not helping
  287. larma I think #878 reflects the truth though
  288. jonas’ Proposed wording (in a separate box at the top): > This specification is currently under special review by the XSF for potential encumberance as per XEP-0001 § X Objective 4. New implementations are discouraged while work is in progress to replace large portions of this document.
  289. Ge0rG jonas’: do we have a hard time limit on the Council Meeting?
  290. ralphm jonas’, +1
  291. jonas’ I would simply instruct the editor to inject that wording.
  292. jonas’ do we need a vote on this?
  293. jonas’ if so, I’m obviously +1
  294. Ge0rG jonas’: +1 on this wording
  295. dwd jonas’, I won't block this, indeed I'll vote as a better-than-nothing.
  296. dwd But I suspect we need a better fix for this, longer term, so I'll propose something policy-ish on the list later on today.
  297. larma jonas’, funny, add "New implementations are discouraged" to experimental XEPs. It's what experimental already mens
  298. larma *means
  299. jonas’ looking at the clock, I further propose that:
  300. jonas’ We let the topic of demoting OMEMO rest for another few weeks (until after FOSDEM) to see how the SIG-E2EE plays out on this topic.
  301. pep. It meets after FOSDEM so probably not much progress
  302. ralphm larma: well, arguably we experimented and found issues that warrent this notice.
  303. jonas’ larma, I can also leave that part out and burn new implementors for no good reason /s
  304. jonas’ moving on
  305. dwd BTW, on the SIG-E2EE, did anything happen about my remark over the "representation" point?
  306. pep. At the IETF etc.?
  307. jonas’ dwd, not that I know, I need to look into the documents, too, didn’t get around to do it since last week
  308. jonas’ which leads me to:
  309. jonas’ 4) Outstanding Votes
  310. jonas’ Three ProtoXEP votes are expiring today
  311. daniel dwd, to be clear you just want an additional footnote that representation may only happen by approved members or something? while the sig itself is open to the public?
  312. dwd pep., I mean at all. We've not allowed non-members to "represent" the XSF in any form before, and even members have tended to need Board permission.
  313. dwd daniel, Right, that.
  314. pep. I think that's explicit in 002 no?
  315. pep. Surely we can add a note
  316. daniel that can be arranged i guess
  317. daniel i'll talk to paul after the meeting
  318. dwd Sounds good.
  319. jonas’ dwd, Zash, Ge0rG, daniel: quick show of hands of the council if we can extend by 15 mins, otherwise I need to call for order and move on with the agenda
  320. Zash Is there a leader for the proposed SIG-E2EE?
  321. dwd I'm happy to extend.
  322. ralphm Yes, we can establish liasons, if there needs to be some kind of official representation, but I don't think we need that for IETF at this point.
  323. daniel yes please extend by 15
  324. dwd ralphm, MLS, perhaps.
  325. pep. dwd, also note that SIGs have no authority, so whoever represents them doesn't actually matter does it
  326. Zash jonas’: sure.
  327. Ge0rG jonas’: +1
  328. ralphm I will ask about funding people going to IETF in Board tomorrow.
  329. jonas’ okay
  330. dwd pep., Internally? Not really. Externally? Yes.
  331. jonas’ retroactively 4a) SIG- E2EE
  332. ralphm The thing holding back SIG-E2EE right now is appointing its leadership.
  333. ralphm I am not sure if I've seen suggestions there.
  334. sonny has left
  335. pep. Well there's an obvious one which is the author
  336. dwd pep., That's Paul as in vanitasvitae, correct?
  337. pep. yes
  338. dwd pep., Sounds like a solid choice.
  339. vanitasvitae hum?
  340. pep. vanitasvitae, yes you!
  341. vanitasvitae I didn't do it!
  342. Ge0rG vanitasvitae: do you volunteer as leader of SIG-E2EE?
  343. Ge0rG ralphm: isn't appointing the leader a Board thing?
  344. vanitasvitae yes I can do that
  345. jonas’ (FTR, I’m holding back here since I still haven’t figured out how SIGs work and I need to read the documents and bylaws. I’m thus still on-list on that one)
  346. ralphm No, in this case, whoever proposes the SIG can provide names for the leadership and Council can give its blessing.
  347. ralphm The only requirement is Membership.
  348. ralphm (of the XSF)
  349. jonas’ alright
  350. Ge0rG which is given according to https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-05-28#Announcement_of_Voting_Results
  351. jonas’ anything else on the SIG-E2EE topic we need to discuss in this meeting?
  352. dwd Does it only become an active SIG when the XEP becomes Active?
  353. jonas’ dwd, one of the many questions I have around SIGs which I intend to research
  354. ralphm I think so.
  355. dwd And does it therefore need a Last Call etc as well as mere adoption?
  356. jonas’ sounds like way overhead
  357. jonas’ but I’d like to note that other SIGs have different XEP types which are not described in XEP-0001
  358. dwd jonas’, Yup. I think we've probably over-discussed the SIG formation at this stage in this case.
  359. Ge0rG jonas’: would it make sense on making Paul the leader?
  360. jonas’ Ge0rG, before even accepting the SIG?
  361. Ge0rG on voting to make
  362. jonas’ I don’t think so
  363. Ge0rG alright
  364. vanitasvitae (when preparing sig-e2ee I basically copied from sig-iot, so some mistakes I made may also apply to this xep)
  365. jonas’ 4b) Outstanding votes on three other ProtoXEPs
  366. jonas’ I see that Ge0rG cast a few votes on-list, but there are still open votes by me notably
  367. ralphm jonas’, I'd be happy for modifications to XEP-0002 to better document things.
  368. jonas’ I’m +1 on MAM FC going ot experimental
  369. jonas’ I’m also +1 on Fallback Indication going to experimental
  370. jonas’ I’ll still be on-list about SIG-E2EE as mentioned
  371. jonas’ 5) Date of Next
  372. jonas’ +1w wfm
  373. daniel +1w
  374. dwd +1
  375. Zash +1w
  376. jonas’ does not actually work for me
  377. jonas’ I’m on a event at that time, so we’ll need a replacement chair.
  378. jonas’ I promise to cast my SIG-E2EE vote befoer that meeting though
  379. jonas’ does anyone volunteer?
  380. dwd jonas’, I can if you do the agenda.
  381. Ge0rG I'm on an event as well, but maybe I'll be able to look into this MUC in parallel
  382. jonas’ dwd, I’ll try :)
  383. jonas’ (should work tho, as usual)
  384. dwd I will, though, miss +2w I think due to travel.
  385. jonas’ 6) AOB
  386. jonas’ 6a) Ge0rG wants to talk about https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/874
  387. jonas’ hands Ge0rG the mic
  388. daniel yes +2w will be problematic for me (and probably others) as well. but we can discuss this next week
  389. Ge0rG jonas’: thanks
  390. Ge0rG actually, about https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036848.html
  391. Ge0rG Marc asked for feedback from the wider community on this change, and it's also controversial, albeit less so than the previous hack of the IBR non-dataform form
  392. ralphm jonas’, on the SIG-E2EE XEP, accepting it as Experimental is different from voting it as Active. I'm not even sure an LC is needed, and am a bit surprised that XEP-0001 is not more clear on this for types other than Standards Track.
  393. ralphm (wow lag)
  394. daniel client side i had no problems implementing that
  395. Ge0rG I'm using a pre-IBR unauthenticated IQ to have the server assign a preauth token to my current non-session, and then to use that token in IBR
  396. daniel if that's the kind of feedback you are looking for
  397. Ge0rG I was made aware that doing pre-auth IQs in servers is BAD.
  398. jonas’ Ge0rG, I don’t like the decoupling, seems like weird state to keep on the server side
  399. Ge0rG jonas’: me neither. but it's very straightforward to implement ;)
  400. jonas’ is it?
  401. Ge0rG for client devs :P
  402. jonas’ *sigh*
  403. Ge0rG I'd have been fine with stuffing the <preauth/> element right into IBR, but...
  404. jonas’ I don’t like this flow and consider it weird. I don’t see a reason not to stuff preauth into a newly namespaced child of IBR to be honest
  405. jonas’ but on this matter, I’m not going to stand in the way of implementation experience
  406. Ge0rG jonas’: stuffing things into IBR leads to the "but dataforms" discussion
  407. jonas’ Ge0rG, not with me it doesn’t
  408. dwd FWIW, I suggested ages ago that IBR etc would be better done by authenticating anonymously and then doing the IBR, and then reconnecting.
  409. daniel that doesn’t solve that problem though, does it?
  410. jonas’ dwd, I’d find that confusing for different reasons.
  411. dwd daniel, I don't know. It certanly moves it about.
  412. Ge0rG dwd: I'd like to make some progress in this decade
  413. Ge0rG we also have SASL2 on the table
  414. jonas’ (specifically, "does a server offering ANONYOMOUS mean that I can register that way or is it simply for anonymously joining some MUC?")
  415. jonas’ In the end, this is Experimental. We can easily rebase on SASL2 before moving on to Draft
  416. jonas’ so again, I’m not going to stand in the way of implementation experience here, I’ll just say I find it weird.
  417. Ge0rG my purely pragmatic opinion is that in the long term, we should reinvent IBR by means of SASL2, but in the short term just do whatever hacks work today
  418. pep. OMEMO easy? /troll.
  419. jonas’ input from the server side (looking at you, Zash) makes sense probably
  420. jonas’ Ge0rG, I can get on board with that
  421. Ge0rG jonas’: that got implemented in https://modules.prosody.im/mod_easy_invite.html
  422. jonas’ (for certain definitions of whatever)
  423. Zash I've discussed with Ge0rG previously
  424. jonas’ alright
  425. Ge0rG I'm sure we have more server devs in the Council
  426. jonas’ am I summarizing correctly if I say that noone is truly happy with this, but it works and we hope for SASL2?
  427. daniel i think ejabberd is traditionally more careful with session states such as that
  428. daniel so we probably should ask them
  429. susmit88 has joined
  430. daniel (their clustering and stuff makes that more complicated; also memory is expensive)
  431. jonas’ *recommend Marc to ask them
  432. Zash We had sooooo many hacks in Prosody to accomodate pre-auth iq stanzas
  433. Ge0rG daniel: would you like to, or is it sufficient if I bump that on Holger?
  434. jonas’ daniel, I’m not sure this is important in this case since the state is bound to a single session which cannot even be resumed on a different node, but I don’t know the details tehre
  435. daniel jonas’, yes maybe. i haven’t thought that all the way through
  436. daniel > *recommend Marc to ask them +1
  437. Ge0rG dwd: do you have an opinion that would result in a -1?
  438. jonas’ (noting that council dosen’t even vote on this)
  439. daniel it's experimental anyway
  440. sonny has joined
  441. jonas’ alright, moving on
  442. Ge0rG jonas’: Council will eventually have to vote on it, though
  443. jonas’ Ge0rG, yes, but hopefully we’ve got SASL2 by then ;)
  444. jonas’ any further discussion on this proposal can be held in xsf@, no need to have it in this meeting
  445. daniel (note that i have much bigger issues with 'easy xmpp', cc Ge0rG)
  446. jonas’ Is there any other any other business we need to discuss?
  447. dwd Ge0rG, I think I'm +0
  448. dwd Ge0rG, Or would be if we were voting.
  449. Ge0rG dwd: awesome, thanks.
  450. dwd Ge0rG, But I'll quite possibly kill it at Proposed if it stays this way.
  451. Ge0rG dwd: SASL2!
  452. dwd Ge0rG, I am doing my level best to make that a reality.
  453. dwd Ge0rG, And, as seems to be the vogue, I note that I am not paid to do that.
  454. Ge0rG I'm also not paid to do preauth, so it looks like we are a good match.
  455. jonas’ we need more VC
  456. jonas’ Is there any other any other business we need to discuss?
  457. daniel not from my side
  458. Zash none here
  459. dwd Nor from me.
  460. jonas’ right
  461. Ge0rG We also need more time. We are over the overtime already.
  462. jonas’ then, thanks for participating and sorry for the chaotic meeting
  463. jonas’ 7) Ite Meeting Est
  464. Ge0rG thank you, jonas’
  465. Ge0rG it was a dense one.
  466. Ge0rG &
  467. susmit88 has left
  468. susmit88 has joined
  469. kusoneko has left
  470. kusoneko has joined
  471. sonny has left
  472. Zash has left
  473. Zash has joined
  474. Zash has left
  475. Zash has joined
  476. sonny has joined
  477. sonny has left
  478. blackbook has joined
  479. sonny has joined
  480. blackbook has left
  481. debacle has left
  482. sonny has left
  483. susmit88 has left
  484. susmit88 has joined
  485. sonny has joined
  486. susmit88 has left
  487. susmit88 has joined
  488. sonny has left
  489. Wojtek has left
  490. susmit88 has left
  491. daniel has left
  492. susmit88 has joined
  493. daniel has joined
  494. Wojtek has joined
  495. susmit88 has left
  496. Wojtek has left
  497. susmit88 has joined
  498. susmit88 has left
  499. susmit88 has joined
  500. sonny has joined
  501. sonny has left
  502. sonny has joined
  503. debacle has joined
  504. blackbook has joined
  505. sonny has left
  506. sonny has joined
  507. blackbook has left
  508. sonny has left
  509. sonny has joined
  510. sonny has left
  511. sonny has joined
  512. Max has left
  513. Max has joined
  514. paul has left
  515. paul has joined
  516. paul has left
  517. paul has joined
  518. paul has left
  519. paul has joined
  520. paul has left
  521. paul has joined
  522. sonny has left
  523. susmit88 has left
  524. susmit88 has joined
  525. susmit88 has left
  526. susmit88 has joined
  527. sonny has joined
  528. undefined has left
  529. sonny has left
  530. daniel has left
  531. sonny has joined
  532. daniel has joined
  533. susmit88 has left
  534. susmit88 has joined
  535. blackbook has joined
  536. Tobias has left
  537. daniel has left
  538. undefined has joined
  539. sonny has left
  540. blackbook has left
  541. daniel has joined
  542. Max has left
  543. Max has joined
  544. susmit88 has left
  545. susmit88 has joined
  546. sonny has joined
  547. susmit88 has left
  548. susmit88 has joined
  549. sonny has left
  550. sonny has joined
  551. daniel has left
  552. daniel has joined
  553. stpeter has left
  554. daniel has left
  555. blackbook has joined
  556. blackbook has left
  557. dwd has left
  558. blackbook has joined
  559. daniel has joined
  560. susmit88 has left
  561. susmit88 has joined
  562. sonny has left
  563. daniel has left
  564. blackbook has left
  565. daniel has joined
  566. blackbook has joined
  567. susmit88 has left
  568. blackbook has left
  569. susmit88 has joined
  570. sonny has joined
  571. debacle has left
  572. debacle has joined
  573. blackbook has joined
  574. debacle has left
  575. debacle has joined
  576. susmit88 has left
  577. susmit88 has joined
  578. daniel has left
  579. blackbook has left
  580. blackbook has joined