XMPP Council - 2020-03-18

Oh, it looks like the vote update mail I didn't finish went down in a laptop crash.

'tis time

1) Roll Call

Hi

Good morning everyone!

I don’t expect a dwd, but Zash was active in another room a few minutes ago

Hey

alright

2) Agenda Bashing

anything to add/remove?

None here

3) Editor’s Update - ProtoXEP: Reminders - Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0184 - Calls in progress: None.

4) Items for voting

4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0184 Title: Message Delivery Receipts URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for message delivery receipts, whereby the sender of a message can request notification that the message has been delivered to a client controlled by the intended recipient.

That's a tough one. There was some feedback, and part of it I'd consider as "very important"

I agree

I'm pretty sure the original authors are very busy, so looks like we need to re-assign or to find a Shepherd of sorts.

I'm very torn on that one. On one hand hand it kinda does what it is supposed to do. And it is widely deployed. It has just slightly fallen out of time

I admit to not have read the full thread yet, so I’m hesitant to shepherd.

I think I'll have to re-read that thread. So, on-list.

There are two possible ways forward: 1) do some eitorial clean-up and modernization without bumping 2) do the crazy multi-ACK namespace bump

all that said, I'm -1 to advance it as-is

I'm against 2

I’m also against (2). I’d rather get '333 bumped in such a way.

and given my lack of time, I can't responsibly promise to step up to do #1

I think it's mostly fine, but some clarification never hurts

jonas’: there were strong arguments for the per-message ACKing of 0184 that isn't available in 0333

Ge0rG, I meant to implicitly mutate '333 to do multi-message acks

but maybe I'm biased in that regard, and what I see as strong arguments is just a "meh" for other readers.

Different implementations / implementers have different requirements? :)

jonas’: that would be rather weird

jonas’, doesn't it already, in a forward-moving pointer way?

either way, I see we can’t advance it

Zash, but message loss

I'm -1 and I'd suggest we do some minor cleanups and advance them

jonas’: adding a new version to 0184 and a server-side muxing/demuxing compat is much more straight-forward

daniel, will you do the cleanups?

I haven't even gotten around my own xeps

shouldn't we formally ping the authors first?

Ge0rG, true

so let’s do that. I’m on-list for now

I feel like I'd like to do the 0184 editing, but I lack the time

so if somebody wearing a chair or an editor hat could remind me periodically, this could happen in a reasonable timeframe

I’ll ping the authors with my editor hat, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll nag you ✏

next:

4b) Start Last Call for XEP-0280: Message Carbons Title: Message Carbons URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Abstract: In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation, outbound messages are carbon-copied to all interested resources.

that’s a fun one

again?

someone™ suggested it

I’m +0

✏

is that a formal vote?

no.

I don't think a LC will yield widely different results to last time

I personally think that '280 should not be touched anymore and any energy should go in '409 (IM 2.0)

I was the last one to touch it, so: - I was told that "it contains payload elements typically used in IM" is not a strict definition of applicable payloads, and thus not implementable - there are not enough implementations of `urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0` yet

Is version 0.13 the incorporation of previous LC's feedback?

Zash: no, 0.13 is me pushing my own agenda

Ge0rG, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html could do with an update, I think it's meant to have that definition, or something

there might be some overlap between last 0280 LC feedback and my agenda, though

jonas’: the lessons that we are learning from 0280 and 0313 are Very Important for the IM 2.0 compat translation

Ge0rG, indeed

so +1 on the LC

I'll heat up my flamethrower.

+0

+0

the vote cannot succeed in this constellation

methinks ✏

need to check the rules again

+2/3/-0 would probably result in a NO

yes, we need a majority of +1

we don’t have that

(and can’t have it anymore) ✏

though I agree with Ge0rG and hence change to +1

jonas’: yaaay!

let’s see what dave says

moving on

4c) Start Last Call for XEP-0357: Push Notifications Title: Push Notifications URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html Abstract: This specification defines a way for an XMPP servers to deliver information for use in push notifications to mobile and other devices.

+1

I think lots of folks have something to say about this

jonas’: I've reminded those folks over the last months to put out their pencils and fix the XEP

...to no avail.

Wasn't that called before with no changes in between?

useful and specific on-list feedback would still be good, if we can get it

+1 to the LC, and I really hope it won't result in a pointless change-less -1 afterwards.

But whatever +1

+1

alright

5) Outstanding Votes

jonas’: I've got a small AOB for 0280

daniel, unless I missed it, you’re still pending on the advancement of '402

Ge0rG, noted

+1

thanks

6) Date of next

+1

+1w wfm ✏

+1

7) AOB I hear Ge0rG has one.

to the people who vote less-than-one to the 0280 LC (and that might include Future Dave): please elaborate what I can improve on the spec to change your mind.

*crickets*

daniel, Zash: currently that is a question to you two

I just think that the situation of people think it's a dead end problematic xep hasn't changed much since last time

I don't see a viable replacement, though.

'409?

IM 2?

that

a viable *short term* replacement

Well im2 has very similar problems

also what I said above, IM 2 will require a compat routing mode which will be more-or-less the Carbon+MAM rules

I guess it's a question of what do we do with xeps that we know aren't perfect but are still the best available solution

Maybe I was wrong with my 0

put them in deferred.

Let's see what the LC brings

is that a +1?

Sure, +1, LC away

Zash: would you like to update 0226?

thanks very much :)

Personally I'd rather have simple general rules that don't need to change too often, or it'll be painful to roll out updates

Zash: yeah, but we somehow failed to define the simple general rules when multi-device support was needed.

Long lists of XEPs tend to become outdated

this sounds like something which could be moved to xsf@

adjurn?

I mean we sort of had the same topic at summit

Yes doesn't have to be on council meeting time

8) Ite Meeting Est

thanks, jonas’

Thanks all, thanks Tedd

Thanks jonas’

thanks, Tedd