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’
moving on
jonas’
4a) PR#959: XEP-0156: reorganize stating XRD/JRD requirements
URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/959
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.
daniel
+1
jonas’
I’m not quite sure if this adds new requirements on implementations, or if those are already implicit in RFC 6415
Zash
On list.
daniel
like what?
Ge0rG
I'm not sure because it removes a "REQUIRED" and adds a "SHOULD
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.
daniel
fair. 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?
flow
around
Ge0rG
I'm also on-list then. I suppose that if we fix the new language to keep the old MUST/SHOULD, I'd be fine
bearhas left
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
yes
jonas’
flow, ah, good, can you comment?
flow
reading the change
dwd
Yeah, I'll do a -1 on the basis that we've changed normative requirements.
flow
ahh 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" :)
flow
can change
dwd
jonas’, Sorry, in full:
jonas’
flow, excellent, then we’ll postpone this to next week
jonas’
and I’ll cancel the vote
flow
but given that there is no feature negotion about this
flow
a MUST did not appears necessary
Ge0rG
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415#section-3 reads like a MUST for XML
flow
what I wanted to express is that you are not allowed to do JRD alone, without XRD
dwd
jonas’, -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.
flow
but 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'
URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598
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.
daniel
on list
Zash
on list
Ge0rG
+1
dwd
I 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’
agreed
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
paulhas left
Ge0rG
jonas’: remember my inquiry about the origins of *bold* and _underline_ earlier today?
dwd
jonas’, Just on '50, I'm not sure that we *can* advance until people think (at least) that they implement the new version.
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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
Ge0rG
phew.
jonas’
thank you for that
jonas’
6) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm
daniel
+1w wfm
Zash
+1w wfm
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
jonas’
excellent
jonas’
7) AOB
jonas’
I have one regarding the Message Routing stuff.
Ge0rG
I've heard that pep. and flow have an AOB
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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?
Ge0rG
jonas’: +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.
Ge0rG
pep.: 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)
Ge0rG
somebody 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’
anyways
jonas’
pep., flow, I think the best way forward would be to update '68 and then update '157
flow
I 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.
flow
I 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.
flow
We 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?
dwd
flow, Registries aren't interoperable protocols, they're documents of record, and as such have different rules.
flow
dwd, sure, but what does that mean?
dwd
flow, 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.
pep.
sure
jonas’
assuming no other AOB:
jonas’
7) Ite Meeting Est
dwd
jonas’, Thanks!
jonas’
thanks all, thanks Tedd
Zash
Tanks all
jonas’
please move further discussion about the registry things to xsf@