-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
- Ge0rG is still hanging in a conference call
-
daniel
Hi
-
jonas’
pinging Zash
-
Zash
Here
-
jonas’
also, hi everyone :)
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
any additions?
-
Zash
I can't think of anything.
-
jonas’
sorry, got distracted reading daves email
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s Report
-
jonas’
- Expired calls: None - Calls in progress: - LC for XEP-0357 (Push notifications) ends at 2020-04-15 - New ProtoXEP: Room Activity Indicators
-
jonas’
by now, the LC has expired
-
jonas’
4) Items for Voting
-
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.
-
Ge0rG
And I forgot to read and comment on the Push thread.
-
daniel
On list
-
jonas’
on list
-
Ge0rG
on list
-
Zash
on List
-
jonas’
alright
-
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.
-
jonas’
I expect some controversy on this one
-
Zash
Muh backwards compat!
-
Ge0rG
very controversial indeed
-
Ge0rG
on-list
-
jonas’
I default to +1
-
Kev
For hysterical raisins, you often disco your server's JID to find out what's supported for your current session.
-
jonas’
I’d like to gradually change that
-
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).
-
Zash
I like the general pattern of disco#info going to the same as the rest of the protocol
-
jonas’
Zash, to the same what?
-
Zash
JID.
-
jonas’
ah, that
-
daniel
+0
-
Zash
Packet loss somewhere between brain and keyboard.
-
jonas’
Kev, so in my puristic view, disco#info for an entity should look the same no matter who’s asking (* conditions apply).
-
daniel
I'm not very on board with changing draft xeps
-
Zash
I think I'll have to on-list and stew for a while.
-
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.
-
daniel
Even though what the PR is doing would be 'more correct'
-
Kev
So I think changing one XEP in isolation is probably not the right thing to do here without wider thought.
-
jonas’
I guess we’ll have to take this to the list for the wider community then
-
Zash
Sounds good.
-
jonas’
fine by me
-
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.
-
daniel
Ok
-
jonas’
alright, moving on
-
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.
-
daniel
-1
-
jonas’
daniel, rationale?
-
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.
-
daniel
Feedback came up that hasn't been addressed
-
jonas’
so back to experimental with this one
-
jonas’
is anyone taking ownership of it?
-
jonas’
Kev, ?
-
jonas’
do you have resources to shepherd it?
-
jonas’
(and/or can you get lance to do it)
-
daniel
As I said on list it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to just start from scratch
-
Kev
I haven't even replied to the LC myself.
-
jonas’
Kev, you’re an author though, which is why I’m asking you :)
-
Kev
Lance wanted to retire from this one.
-
jonas’
alright
-
daniel
Not that I'm volunteering to do so. But that makes the question of ownership unnecessary
-
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.
-
jonas’
OK
-
jonas’
it would be good to get someone actually involved with implementations around this to do the work
-
Kev
Indeed.
-
jonas’
that’d be mobile client devs and server devs primarily
-
Zash
I have conveniently not touched this for years, so not it! /me hides
-
Kev
Both of which I am, obviously, but am very short of cycles at the moment.
-
jonas’
getting some input from the Xabber folks would also be good
-
daniel
Well the tigase people introduced something at summit. We should probably encourage them to actually write that down in xep Form
-
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?
-
daniel
Yes
-
jonas’
thank you
-
jonas’
alright, moving on
-
jonas’
5) Pending Votes
-
jonas’
Dave cleared his off the list in the last mail
-
jonas’
He made valid points about PR#913 and I’m going to fix that up and re-propose it.
-
jonas’
other than that, we’re good to go I think.
-
jonas’
6) Date of Next
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
daniel
Wfm
-
Zash
works for me
-
jonas’
7) AOB
-
jonas’
none from me
-
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
-
jonas’
who’ll shepherd that?
-
jonas’
or do you have contact to Philipp Hancke?
-
daniel
He has been somewhat active on the list lately
-
daniel
But I think they will be rather uncontroversial and just go through
-
daniel
It's just meta data annotations
-
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
-
jonas’
not sure what to make of that
-
daniel
OK. Put it on the agenda for next week
-
daniel
I thought Editor could call them
-
jonas’
daniel, if you can get Philipp to ask the Editor to LC them before that, we can start it early.
-
jonas’
from my reading of '1 not
-
jonas’
oh wait
-
jonas’
> The Approving Body must agree that the XEP is ready to be considered for advancement.
-
jonas’
nevermind me, so, we need to vote on this
-
jonas’
putting it up for next week
-
jonas’
Thanks
-
jonas’
anything else?
-
jonas’
assuming not
-
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
-
jonas’
Thanks everyone
-
Zash
Thanks all
-
daniel
Thanks