XMPP Council - 2020-03-18


  1. Ge0rG Oh, it looks like the vote update mail I didn't finish went down in a laptop crash.
  2. jonas’ 'tis time
  3. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  4. jonas’
  5. daniel Hi
  6. Ge0rG Good morning everyone!
  7. jonas’ I don’t expect a dwd, but Zash was active in another room a few minutes ago
  8. Zash Hey
  9. jonas’ alright
  10. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  11. jonas’ anything to add/remove?
  12. Zash None here
  13. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update - ProtoXEP: Reminders - Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0184 - Calls in progress: None.
  14. jonas’ 4) Items for voting
  15. jonas’ 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.
  16. Ge0rG That's a tough one. There was some feedback, and part of it I'd consider as "very important"
  17. jonas’ I agree
  18. Ge0rG 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.
  19. daniel 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
  20. jonas’ I admit to not have read the full thread yet, so I’m hesitant to shepherd.
  21. Zash I think I'll have to re-read that thread. So, on-list.
  22. Ge0rG There are two possible ways forward: 1) do some eitorial clean-up and modernization without bumping 2) do the crazy multi-ACK namespace bump
  23. Ge0rG all that said, I'm -1 to advance it as-is
  24. daniel I'm against 2
  25. jonas’ I’m also against (2). I’d rather get '333 bumped in such a way.
  26. Ge0rG and given my lack of time, I can't responsibly promise to step up to do #1
  27. Zash I think it's mostly fine, but some clarification never hurts
  28. Ge0rG jonas’: there were strong arguments for the per-message ACKing of 0184 that isn't available in 0333
  29. jonas’ Ge0rG, I meant to implicitly mutate '333 to do multi-message acks
  30. Ge0rG but maybe I'm biased in that regard, and what I see as strong arguments is just a "meh" for other readers.
  31. Zash Different implementations / implementers have different requirements? :)
  32. Ge0rG jonas’: that would be rather weird
  33. Zash jonas’, doesn't it already, in a forward-moving pointer way?
  34. jonas’ either way, I see we can’t advance it
  35. jonas’ Zash, but message loss
  36. daniel I'm -1 and I'd suggest we do some minor cleanups and advance them
  37. Ge0rG jonas’: adding a new version to 0184 and a server-side muxing/demuxing compat is much more straight-forward
  38. jonas’ daniel, will you do the cleanups?
  39. daniel I haven't even gotten around my own xeps
  40. Ge0rG shouldn't we formally ping the authors first?
  41. jonas’ Ge0rG, true
  42. jonas’ so let’s do that. I’m on-list for now
  43. Ge0rG I feel like I'd like to do the 0184 editing, but I lack the time
  44. Ge0rG so if somebody wearing a chair or an editor hat could remind me periodically, this could happen in a reasonable timeframe
  45. jonas’ next:
  46. jonas’ I’ll ping the authors with my editor hat, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll nag you
  47. jonas’ next:
  48. jonas’ 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.
  49. jonas’ that’s a fun one
  50. Zash again?
  51. jonas’ someone™ suggested it
  52. jonas’ I’m +0
  53. Ge0rG ,oO( I'm )-1 on principle.
  54. Ge0rG ,oO( I'm -1 on principle. )
  55. jonas’ is that a formal vote?
  56. Ge0rG no.
  57. daniel I don't think a LC will yield widely different results to last time
  58. jonas’ I personally think that '280 should not be touched anymore and any energy should go in '409 (IM 2.0)
  59. Ge0rG 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
  60. Zash Is version 0.13 the incorporation of previous LC's feedback?
  61. Ge0rG Zash: no, 0.13 is me pushing my own agenda
  62. Zash Ge0rG, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html could do with an update, I think it's meant to have that definition, or something
  63. Ge0rG there might be some overlap between last 0280 LC feedback and my agenda, though
  64. Ge0rG jonas’: the lessons that we are learning from 0280 and 0313 are Very Important for the IM 2.0 compat translation
  65. jonas’ Ge0rG, indeed
  66. Ge0rG so +1 on the LC
  67. Ge0rG I'll heat up my flamethrower.
  68. Zash +0
  69. daniel +0
  70. jonas’ the vote cannot succeed in this constellation
  71. jonas’ methinksk
  72. jonas’ methinks
  73. jonas’ need to check the rules again
  74. Ge0rG +2/3/-0 would probably result in a NO
  75. jonas’ yes, we need a majority of +1
  76. jonas’ we don’t have that
  77. jonas’ (and can’t have it anymore
  78. jonas’ (and can’t have it anymore)
  79. jonas’ though I agree with Ge0rG and hence change to +1
  80. Ge0rG jonas’: yaaay!
  81. jonas’ let’s see what dave says
  82. jonas’ moving on
  83. jonas’ 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.
  84. jonas’ +1
  85. jonas’ I think lots of folks have something to say about this
  86. Ge0rG jonas’: I've reminded those folks over the last months to put out their pencils and fix the XEP
  87. Ge0rG ...to no avail.
  88. daniel Wasn't that called before with no changes in between?
  89. jonas’ useful and specific on-list feedback would still be good, if we can get it
  90. Ge0rG +1 to the LC, and I really hope it won't result in a pointless change-less -1 afterwards.
  91. daniel But whatever +1
  92. Zash +1
  93. jonas’ alright
  94. jonas’ 5) Outstanding Votes
  95. Ge0rG jonas’: I've got a small AOB for 0280
  96. jonas’ daniel, unless I missed it, you’re still pending on the advancement of '402
  97. jonas’ Ge0rG, noted
  98. daniel +1
  99. jonas’ thanks
  100. jonas’ 6) Date of next
  101. jonas’ +1 wwfm
  102. jonas’ +1 wfm
  103. Zash +1
  104. jonas’ +1w wfm
  105. Ge0rG +1
  106. jonas’ 7) AOB I hear Ge0rG has one.
  107. jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG
  108. Ge0rG 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.
  109. Ge0rG *crickets*
  110. Ge0rG daniel, Zash: currently that is a question to you two
  111. daniel I just think that the situation of people think it's a dead end problematic xep hasn't changed much since last time
  112. Ge0rG I don't see a viable replacement, though.
  113. jonas’ '409?
  114. Zash IM 2?
  115. jonas’ that
  116. Ge0rG a viable *short term* replacement
  117. daniel Well im2 has very similar problems
  118. Ge0rG also what I said above, IM 2 will require a compat routing mode which will be more-or-less the Carbon+MAM rules
  119. daniel 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
  120. daniel Maybe I was wrong with my 0
  121. Ge0rG put them in deferred.
  122. daniel Let's see what the LC brings
  123. jonas’ is that a +1?
  124. Zash Sure, +1, LC away
  125. Ge0rG Zash: would you like to update 0226?
  126. Ge0rG thanks very much :)
  127. Zash 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
  128. Ge0rG Zash: yeah, but we somehow failed to define the simple general rules when multi-device support was needed.
  129. Zash Long lists of XEPs tend to become outdated
  130. jonas’ this sounds like something which could be moved to xsf@
  131. jonas’ adjurn?
  132. daniel I mean we sort of had the same topic at summit
  133. daniel Yes doesn't have to be on council meeting time
  134. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  135. Ge0rG thanks, jonas’
  136. jonas’ Thanks all, thanks Tedd
  137. Zash Thanks jonas’
  138. Ge0rG thanks, Tedd