jonas’3) Editor’s update
- Expiring calls
- CFE for XEP-0050 (ended on 2020-06-09)
jonas’4) Items for Voting
jonas’I did not include the advancement vote of '0050 in here, because I presume that we’ll have more discussion about that in 4b. If anyone wants to have the vote on advancing '0050 to Final in this meeting either way, please speak up now.
jonas’assuming no, but you can still raise your voice until we’ve gotten past 4b
jonas’4a) PR#959: XEP-0156: reorganize stating XRD/JRD requirements
Abstract: The reference to RFC 6120 was incorrect, what this really meant is RFC 6415. But instead of simply s/RFC 6120/RFC 6415/ here, I decided to reorganize stating the requirements of XRD and JRD a little.
jonas’I’m not quite sure if this adds new requirements on implementations, or if those are already implicit in RFC 6415
Ge0rGI'm not sure because it removes a "REQUIRED" and adds a "SHOULD
jonas’daniel, XML MUST, JSON SHOULD
jonas’oh, no, it doesn’t change anything
jonas’I can’t read.
jonas’so, yeah, it moves from MUST XML to SHOULD XML, and SHOULD JSON to MAY JSON.
jonas’I’m not quite sure what the point of that is
jonas’flow, are you around?
jonas’this seems odd to me, because now clients have to effectively support both since a service may opt to do no XML but JSON.
danielfair. I retract my +1. I didn’t see that
jonas’barring a magical appearance of flow, I’m on-list
jonas’any word from dwd?
Ge0rGI'm also on-list then. I suppose that if we fix the new language to keep the old MUST/SHOULD, I'd be fine
jonas’same as Ge0rG from my side
daniel> I suppose that if we fix the new language to keep the old MUST/SHOULD, I'd be fine
jonas’flow, ah, good, can you comment?
flowreading the change
dwdYeah, I'll do a -1 on the basis that we've changed normative requirements.
flowahh I see
dwd(But I can be argued out of it).
jonas’dwd, without context, that sounds odd and I think you wanted to add a "without good reason" :)
dwdjonas’, Sorry, in full:
jonas’flow, excellent, then we’ll postpone this to next week
jonas’and I’ll cancel the vote
flowbut given that there is no feature negotion about this
flowa MUST did not appears necessary
Ge0rGhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415#section-3 reads like a MUST for XML
flowwhat I wanted to express is that you are not allowed to do JRD alone, without XRD
dwdjonas’, -1 on the basis that we have changed normative requirements such that it is unclear what a consumer of the record need to implement to ensure interoperability.
flowbut a MUST is probably clearer
jonas’flow, that is not at all clear from the text, please fix that
jonas’okay, moving on
jonas’4b) PR#598: XEP-0050: Try to clarify usage of 'execute'
Abstract: The "execute" dilemma of XEP-0050.
jonas’I added wording to the PR compared to last week using my editor superpowers
jonas’specifically, I added this: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598/commits/fc14df1d8d49a065115cb4549e66e243db4b6ce3 (note that this only shows a subset of the total changes the PR introduces)
jonas’(full changes are here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598/files )
jonas’I think this is the best we can do and I am +1 on this as-is.
dwdI think I'm +1 on this. Though we're deep into "least harm" territory, and I'll be interested in what others have to say.
jonas’since we’re considering adopting this, the advancement vote shall be postponed with another CFE later inbetween.
jonas’5) Outstanding votes
jonas’Ge0rG, I think you have quite a few, unless I’m behind on the mailing list mails.
jonas’oh, I am actually
Ge0rGjonas’: remember my inquiry about the origins of *bold* and _underline_ earlier today?
dwdjonas’, Just on '50, I'm not sure that we *can* advance until people think (at least) that they implement the new version.
Ge0rGjonas’: I catched up with two-weeks-ago, and I'm not sure there were any votes last week
jonas’dwd, yes, hence, later :)
jonas’Ge0rG, no, you’re good, I’ve got everything from you now
jonas’thank you for that
jonas’6) Date of Next
jonas’I have one regarding the Message Routing stuff.
Ge0rGI've heard that pep. and flow have an AOB
Ge0rGjonas’: I still didn't manage to do the doodle.
jonas’First I need to say mea culpa, because I got massively confused with dates and now more than half of the proposed timing lots is over.
jonas’Ge0rG, good thing is you only need to fill out like three days now.
jonas’Ge0rG, you have the nice opportunity to just pick one of the greenish slots onw
jonas’today would’ve worked great, but that’s not an option anymore, so I think Friday at 16:00 CEST is the only one we have left
pep.Ge0rG, well I'm not sure :x
jonas’Ge0rG, would that work for you?
Ge0rGjonas’: +1 for Friday 16:00 CEST
pep.I'd like to sort out the hanging PR about 0157 for sure. I don't know what to take off the list thread
jonas’ok, I’ll try to send out an email after this meeting.
Ge0rGpep.: I read the thread as a generally vague +1 with a hint to add a .well-known mapping
jonas’on the '157: My opinion is that dwd is absolutely correct and we should extend '68 to allow validation information.
jonas’(and also that dwd is correct in that we need a fixed registry)
Ge0rGsomebody should fix it
jonas’yeah, somebody should
jonas’hm, I should ping MattJ if we can set up old-eos as a build worker for docker images...
jonas’pep., flow, I think the best way forward would be to update '68 and then update '157
flowI like to suggest that we see registry and their entries as extensible, instead of explicitly marking them
jonas’the '157 PR can then stay as-is and we can apply it once '68 is patched.
flowI mean this is a general thing, not limited to data forms
jonas’I’m hesitant about that, but an extended discussion should be continued on-list as pep suggested indeed.
flowWe will in the future most likely run into situations where an xep extends another xep, and its elements, which are potentially found in a registry
jonas’any other AOB?
dwdflow, Registries aren't interoperable protocols, they're documents of record, and as such have different rules.
flowdwd, sure, but what does that mean?
dwdflow, Same argument, after all, applies the the XEP format itself.
pep.(jonas’, is that what I suggested? :p)
jonas’pep., in fact, no, but I misread what you said, apologies
jonas’I’m not good at reading tonight
jonas’I still think that this is better suited for xsf@ or the list.
jonas’assuming no other AOB:
jonas’7) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’thanks all, thanks Tedd
jonas’please move further discussion about the registry things to xsf@