XMPP Council - 2020-05-20

  1. jonas’


  2. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  3. Zash

    Good morning

  4. Ge0rG

    Good morning everyone

  5. dwd

    Good afternoon.

  6. daniel


  7. jonas’

    full house, nice!

  8. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  9. jonas’

    anything I misksed?

  10. jonas’

    anything I missed?

  11. Ge0rG


  12. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  13. jonas’

    - Calls in progress: - LC for XEP-0393 (ends at 2020-05-26) - Expired/Expiring calls: - LC for XEP-0320 (ends today!) - LC for XEP-0339 (ends today!)

  14. jonas’

    %s/ends today/ended yesterday/g

  15. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  16. jonas’

    4a) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0339 Title: Source-Specific Media Attributes in Jingle URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0339.html Abstract: This specification provides an XML mapping for translating the RFC 5766 Source-Specific Media Attributes from SDP to Jingle

  17. jonas’

    the LC expired

  18. daniel


  19. jonas’

    with very sparse feedback

  20. jonas’

    but the feedback was thoroughly positive, so +1

  21. daniel

    the feedback we had was positive

  22. daniel

    and it is a very niche topic

  23. jonas’

    also, two independent implementations would make this ripe even for final

  24. dwd

    +1 from me to for much the same reason.

  25. Zash


  26. jonas’

    Ge0rG, ?

  27. Ge0rG


  28. Ge0rG


  29. jonas’


  30. jonas’

    4b) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0320 Title: Use of DTLS-SRTP in Jingle Sessions URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0320.html Abstract: This specification defines how to use DTLS-SRTP (RFC 5763) in the Jingle application type for the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) as a way to negotiate media path key agreement for secure RTP in one-to-one media sessions.

  31. Ge0rG

    also on-list

  32. jonas’

    similar amount and kind of feedback

  33. jonas’

    again +1

  34. daniel

    +1 (few but positive feedback)

  35. dwd

    Same deal, +1.

  36. Ge0rG

    I've also missed both LCs :(

  37. Zash


  38. jonas’


  39. jonas’

    5) Outstanding Votes

  40. jonas’

    I didn’t update the SoD much since last week, but I think there are still some

  41. jonas’

    on the channel binding spec

  42. Ge0rG

    So much red

  43. jonas’

    we should probably discuss if me vetoing it is exaggerated

  44. Zash

    I'd be okay with it if the changes mentioned on the list were applied.

  45. dwd waves AOB flag.

  46. jonas’

    dwd, in context of this?

  47. daniel

    jonas’, do you agree that 'florians proposal' would be better?

  48. daniel

    or good enough?

  49. jonas’

    daniel, yes

  50. dwd

    jonas’, No, it just reminded me.

  51. jonas’

    I think I said so on list, too

  52. daniel

    i think in that case it doesn’t really matter

  53. daniel

    because i think we all want the xep to change in that direction

  54. daniel

    and Sam should just change it. imho

  55. dwd

    daniel, We do (even though I've not veto'd).

  56. jonas’

    does "we all" include Sam though?

  57. daniel

    and then jonas’ can un-veto

  58. jonas’

    either way, let’s get this under the XSF umbrella and fix things there.

  59. jonas’

    +1 on Channelbinding pseudomechanisms, in the hope that it’ll get fixed to not be pseudomechansims

  60. Zash

    +1, what jonas’ said

  61. jonas’

    dwd, I can’t find your vote on-list, you said you were +1?

  62. dwd

    I believe I did say as much, yes.

  63. jonas’

    thanks, Ge0rG ?

  64. dwd

    Although where I can't recall.

  65. jonas’

    dwd, this shall do

  66. Ge0rG

    jonas’: is my non-vote blocking progress?

  67. jonas’

    Ge0rG, no, it expires today

  68. jonas’

    but I wanted to give you a chance to veto

  69. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I'm aware of that.

  70. dwd

    But for the record, +1 although with the understanding we'll fix it in Experimental.

  71. jonas’

    if you don’t want to vote that’s fine and we can move on to AOB

  72. Zash

    I sent a vote on the FROM_TYPE thing to the list yesterday

  73. SamWhited

    Quickly injecting: I probably won't change the current draft. If you want to immediately deprecate/obsolete it that's fine, but I'd like it documented and would appreciate it if you'd still accept it. I will likely continue to use pseudomechanisms in my deployment because they're working just fine and so far I haven't had a single problem with them so having them documented somewhere would be nice.

  74. jonas’

    Zash, saw taht

  75. jonas’


  76. jonas’

    I retract my +1

  77. SamWhited

    I may start a separate document since it seems clear that no one else likes pseudomechanisms, or I may not, I still haven't finished the other suggestion to see how well it works.

  78. dwd

    SamWhited, You don't own the current spec. So if your intent is to refuse updates I'll veto it now and save us the bother.

  79. jonas’


  80. jonas’

    I don’t see a point with that

  81. daniel

    SamWhited, huh? what’s the issue with 'Florians' proposal?

  82. SamWhited

    dwd: fair enough. I would appreciate if people would accept it and immediately obsolete it, but I suppose there's no point in the XSF owning it either

  83. daniel

    SamWhited, huh? what’s the issue with 'Florians proposal'?

  84. jonas’

    I’m back to -1.

  85. dwd

    SamWhited, The XSF isn't a Wiki. :-)

  86. jonas’

    the rationale I’ve given on-list in https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037388.html, also a clear statement of the author that they don’t want to change that document to fix things.

  87. SamWhited

    dwd: I thought we did something like the IETF does where we sometimes just document unrecommended or proprietary things that most stuff shouldn't implement but is good to have written down in case others want to be compatible with eg. a closed service liek HipChat?

  88. jonas’

    SamWhited, we *do* have wiki.xmpp.org

  89. SamWhited

    daniel: I'm not sure, it may be fine. I need to go back and summarize the thread and decide.

  90. jonas’

    Sam can repropose the document if he decides to change it. If and why and how can be discussed in a different venue, since we have an AOB pending.

  91. jonas’

    6) AOB

  92. jonas’ hands the mic to dwd

  93. dwd

    Yes! Some good news, Sam's password storage draft has been adopted as a Working Group draft.

  94. Zash


  95. jonas’


  96. daniel

    which one?

  97. dwd

    It was "individual", it's now a formal product of the IETF.

  98. SamWhited

    Now only 10 years or so before it can actually be published as an RFC :) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-whited-kitten-password-storage/

  99. dwd

    daniel, kitten

  100. SamWhited

    I think Robbie is going to put out a call for adoption for the channel binding one in kitten too, just waiting to hear back from him on that one.

  101. dwd


  102. dwd

    So anyway, that was it. Really pleased that's happened, and hopefully we'll get some useful input from that.

  103. jonas’

    Any other AOB?

  104. Ge0rG

    any news on that routing sprint?

  105. jonas’

    right, I forgot to send out the planning mail

  106. jonas’

    I shall do so tomorrow

  107. jonas’

    the weekend was not as quiet as I hoped for

  108. Ge0rG

    they never are

  109. jonas’

    true words

  110. jonas’

    and with that

  111. Zash

    weekend starts now!

  112. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  113. jonas’

    Zash, INDEED!

  114. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  115. Zash

    Thanks yall

  116. dwd

    Thanks jonas’!

  117. Ge0rG

    jonas’: you forgot an important thing, #7

  118. dwd

    Ge0rG, We're never having another meeting now.

  119. Ge0rG

    dwd: that's good. No need to tell everybody that I might not make the next two meetings, then.

  120. jonas’


  121. dwd

    You going anywhere nice?

  122. jonas’


  123. jonas’

    7) Date of Next

  124. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  125. Ge0rG

    dwd: not to Denmark, unfortunately.

  126. Zash

    +1w wfm

  127. Ge0rG

    +3w wfm

  128. dwd

    +1w WFM.

  129. jonas’

    Ge0rG, so you’re skipping two weeks? will you be able to vote on list?

  130. daniel


  131. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I might or might not make the actual meetings, and I'll probably be able to vote on list

  132. jonas’


  133. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est For Real

  134. jonas’

    thanks again