heads up, work and public transport hate my scheduling today. I might run a few minutes late. Feel free to start without me, I'll join. Ideally, I'll at least be on my phone when 1600Z strikes
Wojtekhas joined
undefinedhas left
undefinedhas joined
paulhas left
undefinedhas left
undefinedhas joined
paulhas joined
undefinedhas left
undefinedhas joined
undefinedhas left
undefinedhas joined
undefinedhas left
undefinedhas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
paulhas left
jonas’
will be on time
paulhas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
susmit88has joined
Zash
Just got home and sat down
jonas’
kind of did the same
jonas’
1) Roll Call
jonas’is present
Zash2
daniel
Here
Ge0rG!
Zash
dwd?
jonas’
assuming that dwd will appear, moving on
jonas’
(we have quorum either way)
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
jonas’
anything to add?
jonas’
probably not
Ge0rG
We need shorter agendas in the future
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
- ProtoXEP: Extended Channel Search
- Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0198, CFE on XEP-0368, LC on XEP-0398
- Calls in progress:
- LC: XEP-0402 (PEP Native Bookmarks), ends: 2020-03-03
- CFE: XEP-0066 (Out of Band Data), ends: 2020-03-10
- LC: XEP-0429 (Special Interests Group End to End Encryption), ends: 2020-03-10
jonas’
(note the LC which came in after I sent the email yesterday)
jonas’
4) Items for a Vote
jonas’
4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0398
Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html
Abstract:
This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard
based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between
the two.✎
jonas’
4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0398
Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html
Abstract:
This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between the two. ✏
jonas’
I would like to see changes on the Security Considerations section before this moves on. Since we need to touch normative language, I guess it’s better to handle this in Experimental
Some PEP access questions came up, it would make sense to consider those first
jonas’
so -1 from my side, with the intent of having someone™ fix this✎✏
jonas’
so -1 from my side, with the intent of having someone™ fix this; so no rejection, just back to Experimental for fixes ✏
Ge0rG
-1 as well due to that
daniel
Yes I'm fine with updating the pep stuff on relative short notice
daniel
We can restart next week or so
jonas’
sounds like a plan
Zash
-1 (I agree with jonas’ )
dwd
Hiya folks, sorry for being late.
stpeterhas joined
daniel
-1
jonas’
that’s massively Veto’d then
jonas’
next:
dwd
I can add another veto if you want. :-)
jonas’
dwd, would be great for formal reasons :)
jonas’
4b) Decide on advancement of XEP-0198
Title: Stream Management
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html
Abstract:
This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for active management of an XML stream between two XMPP entities, including features for stanza acknowledgements and stream resumption.
(The CFE ends today, so be sure to send in your feedback if you haven’t already.)
dwd
-1, for the reasons stated by others.
Ge0rG
dwd: can you also add more veto reasons?
jonas’
I am on-list, because I haven’t been able to catch up on the thread yet
Ge0rG
I'm not sure regarding 0198. It's doing its job great, except for the unclear resume host connection mechanism
dwd
For XEP-0198, I noted a comment from - I think - MattJ on S2S I've yet to consider. But it's fair to say that 198 on S2S is under specified at best.
Zash
Ge0rG, s2s?
jonas’
we have zero s2s implementations, do we?
Ge0rG
So we want actual experience with s2s 0198?
jonas’
question is whether that even allows us to move it forward
daniel
-1. I think I (and others) brought up vaild but fixable concerns
Zash
on-list, haven't read that thread yet
dwd
jonas’, I honestly don't know. None were explicitly mentioned.
dwd
jonas’, Which itself is a procedural reason for not advancing.
dwd
So as such, given the lack of clarity there, I'll be -1 on this.
jonas’
indeed
Zash
mod_smacks for Prosody does support 198 on s2s, but it's disabled by default and I don't think anyone ever enabled it
Zash
no resumption tho
dwd
Zash, Right, unclear what resumption would do for S2S.
jonas’
resending stanzas which weren’t acked?
dwd
jonas’, Depends if they weren't already bounced.
jonas’
mmm
jonas’
okay, that’s a rabbit hole we shouldn’t go down in this context
dwd
Quite.
jonas’
moving on
Ge0rG
so -1 then
jonas’
4c) Deviced on advancement of XEP-0368
Title: SRV records for XMPP over TLS
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0368.html
Abstract:
This specification defines a procedure to look up xmpps-client/xmpps-server SRV records (for direct TLS connections) in addition to xmpp-client/xmpp-server and mix weights/priorities.
moparisthebest
(I promised to make some changes to XEP-0368, mostly clerical, but one SHOULD to a MAY)
jonas’
I am -1 on 4c, since there need to be some changes made
undefinedhas left
Ge0rG
-1 on 4c as well, I liked the proposed wording
jonas’goes to dig up the proposed wording
Zash
on-list
daniel
On list. I'm not caught up on that
dwd
I'll take "I promised to make some changes" as a "update coming", so -1 for now.
Ge0rG
I think that leaving this to clients is good, because right now, priorizing DirectTLS over STARTSSL will add an RTT on servers without DirectTLS SRV records
dwd
I'm also unclear on ALPN implementation.
dwd
Oh, and this reminds me - I have AOB, jonas’
jonas’
alright, changes will happen here, so moving on
jonas’
dwd, noted
jonas’
4d) Proposed XMPP Extension: Extended Channel Search
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/extended-channel-search.html
Abstract:
This specification provides a standardised protocol to search for public group chats. In contrast to XEP-0030 (Service Discovery), it works across multiple domains and in contrast to XEP-0055 (Jabber Search) it more clearly handles extensibility.
jonas’
Unsurprisingly, I’m +1 on that one.
daniel
+1
Zash
+1
dwd
+1
Ge0rG
I have issues with that, mainly regarding the discoverability of whether the service is a local search for the given host domain or a proxy
Ge0rG
+1
jonas’
Ge0rG, me too, I intend to fix those in Experimental
jonas’
excellent, next
jonas’
4e) Authorship of XEP-0044
Title: Full Namespace Support for XML Streams
Abstract:
A description of the use of namespaces within Jabber.
Zash
jonas’, was this the one mentioning something about 0004? I didn't see it
jonas’
Zash, yes, in the Design Considerations section
jonas’
I would like to take authorship of XEP-0044, polish it, add namespaced attributes and a stream feature to it and bring it back on TRack✎
jonas’
I would like to take authorship of XEP-0044, polish it, add namespaced attributes and a stream feature to it and bring it back on Track ✏
jonas’
I tried to contact the author already, but neither did I get a reply nor can I find the sent mail, so maybe I didn’t
jonas’
ah, it’s stuck in my clients outbox
Ge0rG
I motion that jonas’ re-sends that email, and if no response happens within of 14d, he may take over authorship
resent it now, so we should probably move that agendum ✏
jonas’
alright
jonas’
5) Outstanding Votes
jonas’
I think Zash still has one pending on Trust Messages
jonas’
(noting that we are on two +1 and two ±0 at the moment)
jonas’
(expires in +1w)
Zash
+1 then
jonas’
alright, done
jonas’
6) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm, though I might both be late and have to leave on time. Meeting at work before, burgers afterwards.
Ge0rG
I'm going to miss +1W
dwd
+1w WFM.
jonas’
so if someone volunteered to chair (I’ll send an agenda, of course) that’d be great
Zash
+1w fwm
daniel
+1w wfm
jonas’looks at dwd
Ge0rG
jonas’: maybe you should announce AOB first
jonas’
can do that
jonas’
let’s hope someone will be there next week to chair then ;)
jonas’
7) AOB
jonas’
dwd had some, so mic to you
dwd
Yeah...
dwd
So XEP-0001 says that to move to Final, a spec needs two implementations, etc.
susmit88has left
dwd
But we're not clear if that means that every optional part needs implementing, and we're not clear on whether this might be one client and one server.
jonas’
true
dwd
I've always just assumed that we demand the same levels as the IETF, which would be 2xClient and 2xServer covering all optional parts.
daniel
That sounds sensible
pep.
So Pubsub and MUC will never be Final?
dwd
Does anyone think this is important enough to specify properly in XEP-0001, and does anyone have any views on this?
pep.
(who implements everything?)
jonas’
dwd, that indeed sounds sensible
Ge0rG
pep.: zinid does?
dwd
pep., The idea would be that a spec moving to Final either gets the weird bits nobody actually does removed, or at least moved to a different XEP.
jonas’
and ..... highly unlikely to ever apply to MUC and PubSub, indeed.
Ge0rG
dwd: it's a good idea. Somebody™ should make it happen!
pep.
yay 1 server implementation, 3 to go
daniel
In practice the number of implementations never seems to be an issue
moparisthebest
then there are odd xeps like 368, where there are 3 parts, 1 client, and 2 server, all servers implemented 1 of them before 368, but I'm not sure we have 2 impls of the 2nd part
jonas’
daniel, in practice, we haven’t tried to Final '45 yet ;)
dwd
daniel, Normally, no - specs are either widely implemented or not at all.
jonas’
dwd, if you prepare a patch for '1, can you remind me to update the CFE template to specifically instruct to mention pieces which were left out in the implementation?
dwd
moparisthebest, ALPN support in XEP-0368 would be an interesting case in point, actually.
dwd
jonas’, Yes, happy to do that.
jonas’
either way, in this non-vote, I’m +1 to making this clear in '1 and to adhere to IETF standards
dwd
So consensus is that I'll take this on, pen some text, get agreement on lists and prepare a patch for this and CFE template?
jonas’
needs to be sanctioned by board either way
jonas’
dwd, yes
dwd
OK, will do.
Zash
Clarification is good.
moparisthebest
dwd, that's true also, I was more meaning all servers supported listening for TLS on c2s, but how many 1) listen on TLS for s2s 2) connect TLS for s2s
moparisthebest
I think maybe just your Metre ?
dwd
moparisthebest, And Openfire - I think Guus did it there anyway.
Zash
Prosody can if you enable port multiplexing
Zash
Listen, not connect tho.
dwd
Anyway, that's me done, jonas’
jonas’
anyone else any AOB?
daniel
None here
Ge0rG
My usual meta-oob comes and goes.
jonas’
we’re running out of time either way
jonas’
Ge0rG, I’m not sure which one that would be, does it fit in 30s?
Ge0rG
jonas’: of course not. It's about persistence of message errors.
jonas’
ew, right
jonas’
then:
jonas’
As a closing note, I’d like to encourage all Council members to read up and potentially advance on this thread: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036870.html
Ge0rG
Or rather, that is one of three or so meta-OOBs that I have around
jonas’
And with that:
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’
thank you all
jonas’
thank you, Tedd
Ge0rG
thank you, jonas’
Zash
Thanks all
dwd
Ge0rG, Didn't I handle persisting message errors somewhere in XEP-0427?
jonas’
(at some point, when Tedd finally disappears into the magic cloud of dust they must’ve come from, council chairs will still say that in the hopes to summon minutes.)✎
jonas’
(at some point, when Tedd eventually disappears into the magic cloud of dust they must’ve come from, council chairs will still say that in the hopes to summon minutes.) ✏
Ge0rG
> The second form, "full", presents every message stanza in the results, including all fastenings, errors, and so on.
Ge0rG
dwd: I don't think that's normative.
Ge0rG
jonas’: it will be one of those arcane procedures nobody knows the reasons for
dwd
Ge0rG, That is normative. It's a statement of fact. I can put MUST somewhere to clarify though.
Ge0rG
dwd: my point is: I want that to be explicit and well-visible to all developers
Ge0rG
and not part of a very new XEP that is still being rewritten
dwd
Ge0rG, Sure. I need to do a fairly extensive pass over that spec; I'll make it clear that an implication of supporting the spec for servers is that they need to store everything inclusing errors.
Ge0rG
dwd: still, I'd like to keep that separate
dwd
Ge0rG, Split out "simplified" and "full" from XEP-0427?
Ge0rG
dwd: split out "you MUST store message errors in MAM"✎
Ge0rG
dwd: split out "you MUST store message errors in MAM and Carbon-copy them everywhere" ✏
paulhas left
paulhas joined
larmahas left
Guus
> moparisthebest, And Openfire - I think Guus did it there anyway.
Yes, but has a bug.
moparisthebest
buggy implementations probably still count as implementations? :) good to know though
moparisthebest
Guus, does openfire do ALPN at all?
moparisthebest
ALPN support seems far more widespread today than just a few years ago when XEP-0368 was written, thanks http/2 I guess!
Guus
moparisthebest: don't think so. Seem to recall it was not supported in java 8
moparisthebest
java unsupported-for-over-a-year-now ? yea probably not :)
moparisthebest
looks like it's been supported since Java 9 though, and 13 is the only supported version of java, until next month when 14 will be
Guus
I think it is in newer versions, but Openfire retains compatibility with older Kava✎
Guus
I think it is in newer versions, but Openfire retains compatibility with older Java ✏
larmahas joined
moparisthebest
Conversations was the first impl and it always supported ALPN, Gajim I think supports ALPN, I don't think Dino does but not sure anymore
moparisthebest
jonas’, does aioxmpp ?
jonas’
moparisthebest, I don’t think so
jonas’
oh it does
moparisthebest
*can* it? (does python let you?)
moparisthebest
oh cool
jonas’
if the PyOpenSSL version is recent enough
moparisthebest
anything that supports http2 supports ALPN so that should be fairly widespread at this point
jonas’
and it’ll log a warning if DirectTLS is attempted and PyOpenSSL doesn’t support ALPN
that's also where it gets hairy, server-side alpn support, probably most servers don't but then it's not the xmpp server's job to proxy to nginx or whatever
moparisthebest
nginx and sslh both support this though, probably haproxy and others too
moparisthebest
"support" or "implementations" is hard to define
jonas’
I think in this case it means that the server side mustn’t break if the client attempts ALPN in a standard-conformant way✎
jonas’
I think in this case it means that the server side mustn’t break if the client attempts xmpp-related ALPN in a standard-conformant way ✏
moparisthebest
yep and that's always been true even when servers just supported "legacy ssl" before 368
moparisthebest
they didn't recognize the TLS extension and just ignored it