- 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!)
jonas’
%s/ends today/ended yesterday/g
jonas’
4) Items for Voting
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
jonas’
the LC expired
daniel
+1
jonas’
with very sparse feedback
jonas’
but the feedback was thoroughly positive, so +1
daniel
the feedback we had was positive
daniel
and it is a very niche topic
jonas’
also, two independent implementations would make this ripe even for final
dwd
+1 from me to for much the same reason.
Zash
+1
jonas’
Ge0rG, ?
Ge0rG
on-list
Ge0rG
sorry
jonas’
alright
susmit88has left
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.
Ge0rG
also on-list
jonas’
similar amount and kind of feedback
jonas’
again +1
daniel
+1 (few but positive feedback)
dwd
Same deal, +1.
Ge0rG
I've also missed both LCs :(
Zash
+1
jonas’
Thanks
jonas’
5) Outstanding Votes
jonas’
I didn’t update the SoD much since last week, but I think there are still some
jonas’
on the channel binding spec
Ge0rG
So much red
jonas’
we should probably discuss if me vetoing it is exaggerated
Zash
I'd be okay with it if the changes mentioned on the list were applied.
dwdwaves AOB flag.
jonas’
dwd, in context of this?
daniel
jonas’, do you agree that 'florians proposal' would be better?
daniel
or good enough?
jonas’
daniel, yes
dwd
jonas’, No, it just reminded me.
jonas’
I think I said so on list, too
daniel
i think in that case it doesn’t really matter
daniel
because i think we all want the xep to change in that direction
daniel
and Sam should just change it. imho
dwd
daniel, We do (even though I've not veto'd).
jonas’
does "we all" include Sam though?
daniel
and then jonas’ can un-veto
jonas’
either way, let’s get this under the XSF umbrella and fix things there.
jonas’
+1 on Channelbinding pseudomechanisms, in the hope that it’ll get fixed to not be pseudomechansims
Zash
+1, what jonas’ said
jonas’
dwd, I can’t find your vote on-list, you said you were +1?
dwd
I believe I did say as much, yes.
jonas’
thanks, Ge0rG ?
dwd
Although where I can't recall.
jonas’
dwd, this shall do
Ge0rG
jonas’: is my non-vote blocking progress?
jonas’
Ge0rG, no, it expires today
jonas’
but I wanted to give you a chance to veto
Ge0rG
jonas’: I'm aware of that.
dwd
But for the record, +1 although with the understanding we'll fix it in Experimental.
jonas’
if you don’t want to vote that’s fine and we can move on to AOB
Zash
I sent a vote on the FROM_TYPE thing to the list yesterday
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.
jonas’
Zash, saw taht
jonas’
huh
jonas’
I retract my +1
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.
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.
jonas’
yeah
jonas’
I don’t see a point with that
daniel
SamWhited, huh? what’s the issue with 'Florians' proposal?✎
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
daniel
SamWhited, huh? what’s the issue with 'Florians proposal'? ✏
jonas’
I’m back to -1.
dwd
SamWhited, The XSF isn't a Wiki. :-)
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.
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?
jonas’
SamWhited, we *do* have wiki.xmpp.org
SamWhited
daniel: I'm not sure, it may be fine. I need to go back and summarize the thread and decide.
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.
jonas’
6) AOB
jonas’hands the mic to dwd
dwd
Yes! Some good news, Sam's password storage draft has been adopted as a Working Group draft.
Zash
Kool.
jonas’
nice!
daniel
which one?
dwd
It was "individual", it's now a formal product of the IETF.
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/
dwd
daniel, kitten
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.
dwd
Great.
dwd
So anyway, that was it. Really pleased that's happened, and hopefully we'll get some useful input from that.
jonas’
Any other AOB?
Ge0rG
any news on that routing sprint?
jonas’
right, I forgot to send out the planning mail
jonas’
I shall do so tomorrow
jonas’
the weekend was not as quiet as I hoped for
Ge0rG
they never are
jonas’
true words
jonas’
and with that
Zash
weekend starts now!
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’
Zash, INDEED!
jonas’
thanks everyone
Zash
Thanks yall
dwd
Thanks jonas’!
Ge0rG
jonas’: you forgot an important thing, #7
dwd
Ge0rG, We're never having another meeting now.
Ge0rG
dwd: that's good. No need to tell everybody that I might not make the next two meetings, then.
jonas’
oh
dwd
You going anywhere nice?
jonas’
well
jonas’
7) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm
Ge0rG
dwd: not to Denmark, unfortunately.
Zash
+1w wfm
Ge0rG
+3w wfm
dwd
+1w WFM.
jonas’
Ge0rG, so you’re skipping two weeks? will you be able to vote on list?
daniel
+1w
Ge0rG
jonas’: I might or might not make the actual meetings, and I'll probably be able to vote on list