XMPP Council - 2020-04-15

  1. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  2. Ge0rG is still hanging in a conference call

  3. daniel


  4. jonas’

    pinging Zash

  5. Zash


  6. jonas’

    also, hi everyone :)

  7. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  8. jonas’

    any additions?

  9. Zash

    I can't think of anything.

  10. jonas’

    sorry, got distracted reading daves email

  11. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Report

  12. jonas’

    - Expired calls: None - Calls in progress: - LC for XEP-0357 (Push notifications) ends at 2020-04-15 - New ProtoXEP: Room Activity Indicators

  13. jonas’

    by now, the LC has expired

  14. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  15. jonas’

    4a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Room Activity Indicators URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/room-activity-indicators.html Abstract: This specification describes a lightweight mechanism for activity notifications in MUCs.

  16. Ge0rG

    And I forgot to read and comment on the Push thread.

  17. daniel

    On list

  18. jonas’

    on list

  19. Ge0rG

    on list

  20. Zash

    on List

  21. jonas’


  22. jonas’

    4b) PR#924 Title: Change service discovery flow to use account instead of server URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/924 Description: The rationale for this is that blocking is an account-level feature. It may not be offered for all accounts, even if the server supports it.

  23. jonas’

    I expect some controversy on this one

  24. Zash

    Muh backwards compat!

  25. Ge0rG

    very controversial indeed

  26. Ge0rG


  27. jonas’

    I default to +1

  28. Kev

    For hysterical raisins, you often disco your server's JID to find out what's supported for your current session.

  29. jonas’

    I’d like to gradually change that

  30. Kev

    I don't think doing so prohibits returning the right results to the right entity, so I think that the motivation listed here doesn't lead to this patch as a result (although other motivations may).

  31. Zash

    I like the general pattern of disco#info going to the same as the rest of the protocol

  32. jonas’

    Zash, to the same what?

  33. Zash


  34. jonas’

    ah, that

  35. daniel


  36. Zash

    Packet loss somewhere between brain and keyboard.

  37. jonas’

    Kev, so in my puristic view, disco#info for an entity should look the same no matter who’s asking (* conditions apply).

  38. daniel

    I'm not very on board with changing draft xeps

  39. Zash

    I think I'll have to on-list and stew for a while.

  40. Kev

    Maybe, but the first two XEPs that I picked at 'random' to check (191, 258) show the same behaviour of advertising on the server JID.

  41. daniel

    Even though what the PR is doing would be 'more correct'

  42. Kev

    So I think changing one XEP in isolation is probably not the right thing to do here without wider thought.

  43. jonas’

    I guess we’ll have to take this to the list for the wider community then

  44. Zash

    Sounds good.

  45. jonas’

    fine by me

  46. jonas’

    So I’d like to cancel the vote so that we’re not bound to the 2w timeline on this starting today after community feedback.

  47. daniel


  48. jonas’

    alright, moving on

  49. jonas’

    4c) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0357: 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.

  50. daniel


  51. jonas’

    daniel, rationale?

  52. jonas’

    -1, I think the arguments brought up against this using PubSub syntax and that making it unnecessarily hard to understand are sound and this needs work.

  53. daniel

    Feedback came up that hasn't been addressed

  54. jonas’

    so back to experimental with this one

  55. jonas’

    is anyone taking ownership of it?

  56. jonas’

    Kev, ?

  57. jonas’

    do you have resources to shepherd it?

  58. jonas’

    (and/or can you get lance to do it)

  59. daniel

    As I said on list it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to just start from scratch

  60. Kev

    I haven't even replied to the LC myself.

  61. jonas’

    Kev, you’re an author though, which is why I’m asking you :)

  62. Kev

    Lance wanted to retire from this one.

  63. jonas’


  64. daniel

    Not that I'm volunteering to do so. But that makes the question of ownership unnecessary

  65. Kev

    Yeah, I meant as an illustration of time for this. Lance wanted another author listed so he could avoid doing things. I thought I'd be spending time working with it, so volunteered, but have ended up not touching it since.

  66. jonas’


  67. jonas’

    it would be good to get someone actually involved with implementations around this to do the work

  68. Kev


  69. jonas’

    that’d be mobile client devs and server devs primarily

  70. Zash

    I have conveniently not touched this for years, so not it! /me hides

  71. Kev

    Both of which I am, obviously, but am very short of cycles at the moment.

  72. jonas’

    getting some input from the Xabber folks would also be good

  73. daniel

    Well the tigase people introduced something at summit. We should probably encourage them to actually write that down in xep Form

  74. jonas’

    daniel, you’re probably more familiar with that than I am, and also conveniently a mobile dev; can you contact them and figure out if they will do that, and if they won’t, post a call to standards@ for someone to do it?

  75. daniel


  76. jonas’

    thank you

  77. jonas’

    alright, moving on

  78. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  79. jonas’

    Dave cleared his off the list in the last mail

  80. jonas’

    He made valid points about PR#913 and I’m going to fix that up and re-propose it.

  81. jonas’

    other than that, we’re good to go I think.

  82. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  83. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  84. daniel


  85. Zash

    works for me

  86. jonas’

    7) AOB

  87. jonas’

    none from me

  88. daniel

    I remembered what I wanted to do last week. Ask editor to please LC XEP-0320: Use of DTLS-SRTP in Jingle Sessions XEP-0339: Source-Specific Media Attributes in Jingle

  89. jonas’

    who’ll shepherd that?

  90. jonas’

    or do you have contact to Philipp Hancke?

  91. daniel

    He has been somewhat active on the list lately

  92. daniel

    But I think they will be rather uncontroversial and just go through

  93. daniel

    It's just meta data annotations

  94. jonas’

    by default, only the approving body or the author can request an LC; in the absence of the author, we need a shepherd. and we’re past the voting stage for today

  95. jonas’

    not sure what to make of that

  96. daniel

    OK. Put it on the agenda for next week

  97. daniel

    I thought Editor could call them

  98. jonas’

    daniel, if you can get Philipp to ask the Editor to LC them before that, we can start it early.

  99. jonas’

    from my reading of '1 not

  100. jonas’

    oh wait

  101. jonas’

    > The Approving Body must agree that the XEP is ready to be considered for advancement.

  102. jonas’

    nevermind me, so, we need to vote on this

  103. jonas’

    putting it up for next week

  104. jonas’


  105. jonas’

    anything else?

  106. jonas’

    assuming not

  107. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  108. jonas’

    Thanks everyone

  109. Zash

    Thanks all

  110. daniel