XMPP Council - 2020-07-22

  1. susmit88 has left

  2. susmit88 has joined

  3. susmit88 has left

  4. susmit88 has joined

  5. neox has left

  6. susmit88 has left

  7. susmit88 has joined

  8. Wojtek has left

  9. susmit88 has left

  10. susmit88 has joined

  11. susmit88 has left

  12. susmit88 has joined

  13. Syndace has left

  14. sonny has left

  15. sonny has joined

  16. susmit88 has left

  17. susmit88 has joined

  18. adiaholic_ has left

  19. adiaholic_ has joined

  20. susmit88 has left

  21. susmit88 has joined

  22. moparisthebest has left

  23. moparisthebest has joined

  24. sonny has left

  25. sonny has joined

  26. Syndace has joined

  27. sonny has left

  28. sonny has joined

  29. susmit88 has left

  30. susmit88 has joined

  31. sonny has left

  32. sonny has joined

  33. susmit88 has left

  34. susmit88 has joined

  35. susmit88 has left

  36. susmit88 has joined

  37. sonny has left

  38. sonny has joined

  39. stpeter has left

  40. susmit88 has left

  41. susmit88 has joined

  42. susmit88 has left

  43. susmit88 has joined

  44. stpeter has joined

  45. susmit88 has left

  46. susmit88 has joined

  47. susmit88 has left

  48. susmit88 has joined

  49. stpeter has left

  50. SouL has joined

  51. susmit88 has left

  52. susmit88 has joined

  53. Tobias has joined

  54. paul has joined

  55. sonny has left

  56. sonny has joined

  57. stpeter has joined

  58. stpeter has left

  59. sonny has left

  60. sonny has joined

  61. sonny has left

  62. sonny has joined

  63. sonny has left

  64. sonny has joined

  65. adiaholic_ has left

  66. adiaholic_ has joined

  67. susmit88 has left

  68. susmit88 has joined

  69. sonny has left

  70. sonny has joined

  71. debacle has joined

  72. vanitasvitae has left

  73. vanitasvitae has joined

  74. stpeter has joined

  75. stpeter has left

  76. robertooo has left

  77. robertooo has joined

  78. susmit88 has left

  79. susmit88 has joined

  80. Zash has left

  81. susmit88 has left

  82. susmit88 has joined

  83. Zash has joined

  84. susmit88 has left

  85. susmit88 has joined

  86. adiaholic_ has left

  87. adiaholic_ has joined

  88. susmit88 has left

  89. susmit88 has joined

  90. neox has joined

  91. susmit88 has left

  92. susmit88 has joined

  93. susmit88 has left

  94. susmit88 has joined

  95. neox has left

  96. neox has joined

  97. susmit88 has left

  98. susmit88 has joined

  99. stpeter has joined

  100. adiaholic_ has left

  101. adiaholic_ has joined

  102. debacle has left

  103. stpeter has left

  104. raspbeguy has left

  105. susmit88 has left

  106. raspbeguy has joined

  107. susmit88 has joined

  108. sonny has left

  109. sonny has joined

  110. susmit88 has left

  111. susmit88 has joined

  112. sonny has left

  113. sonny has joined

  114. sonny has left

  115. sonny has joined

  116. sonny has left

  117. sonny has joined

  118. susmit88 has left

  119. susmit88 has joined

  120. susmit88 has left

  121. susmit88 has joined

  122. susmit88 has left

  123. susmit88 has joined

  124. debacle has joined

  125. neox has left

  126. neox has joined

  127. sonny has left

  128. sonny has joined

  129. sonny has left

  130. sonny has joined

  131. susmit88 has left

  132. susmit88 has joined

  133. stpeter has joined

  134. paul has left

  135. susmit88 has left

  136. susmit88 has joined

  137. susmit88 has left

  138. susmit88 has joined

  139. sonny has left

  140. sonny has joined

  141. stpeter has left

  142. susmit88 has left

  143. susmit88 has joined

  144. susmit88 has left

  145. susmit88 has joined

  146. susmit88 has left

  147. susmit88 has joined

  148. Tobias has left

  149. Tobias has joined

  150. susmit88 has left

  151. susmit88 has joined

  152. susmit88 has left

  153. susmit88 has joined

  154. adiaholic_ has left

  155. adiaholic_ has joined

  156. paul has joined

  157. stpeter has joined

  158. adiaholic_ has left

  159. stpeter has left

  160. adiaholic_ has joined

  161. susmit88 has left

  162. susmit88 has joined

  163. vanitasvitae has left

  164. vanitasvitae has joined

  165. susmit88 has left

  166. susmit88 has joined

  167. stpeter has joined

  168. susmit88 has left

  169. susmit88 has joined

  170. vanitasvitae has left

  171. vanitasvitae has joined

  172. susmit88 has left

  173. susmit88 has joined

  174. daniel


  175. eta

    hi daniel :p

  176. vanitasvitae


  177. flow


  178. eta

    oh is there a meeting

  179. eta


  180. flow

    we are about to find out :)

  181. Zash

    dun dun duuuuuun

  182. Ge0rG

    good morning

  183. flow

    let's see who of council is missing? jonas’ dwd

  184. flow

    ahh, a wild Ge0rG awakes

  185. Ge0rG

    I've heard jonas’ is on holiday, and I'm still in a phone conference.

  186. daniel

    he is on holiday but didn’t mention that in the agenda he sent yestarday?

  187. flow

    and is see a "+1w wfm" from him in the backlog

  188. daniel

    I can chair but with only Zash and me being here that's going to be a boring meeting anyway

  189. jonas’


  190. jonas’


  191. jonas’

    as promised, I got totally thrown off in my schedule by vacation

  192. jonas’

    sorry for the delayed start

  193. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  194. Zash

  195. jonas’

    re-pinging daniel, Zash, and Ge0rG

  196. daniel

    i'm still here

  197. Ge0rG is still not quite here

  198. jonas’


  199. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  200. Zash

    I got thrown off by my vacation ending

  201. jonas’

    any modifications?

  202. daniel

    none here

  203. Zash


  204. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update - Advanced XEP-0338 to Draft

  205. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  206. jonas’

    4a) PR#971 vs. PR#972 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/971 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972 Summary: The first one is truly an (editorial) clarification (AFAICT), the second one is a normative change to the presence of type fields in certain form types.

  207. jonas’

    technically, we probably need to vote on each one individually, but we should discuss them together

  208. jonas’

    note that XEP-0004 is final

  209. Zash

    I agree with the comment about "clarify"

  210. jonas’

    I am firmly against changing normative wording in '4 (a final spec), especially when there’s evidence that implementations already do what the change would forbid.

  211. daniel

    if we were talking about an experimental XEP i'd find 972 to be the better, more explicit option

  212. jonas’

    I agree with daniel

  213. daniel

    but we aren't

  214. jonas’

    does anyone want to discuss anything else before I start the votes?

  215. Zash

    Does flow wanna explain the rationale behind changing normative language?

  216. jonas’

    there was some discussion about that in https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2020-07-21#2020-07-21-5b9e98899766b145 ++

  217. flow

    Zash, sure, which change to you refer to?

  218. Zash

    972, the one where jonas’ notes that it changes MUSTs and such

  219. jonas’

    flow, why not all of them, given that this is a Final spec.

  220. jonas’

    but the most crucial one (which goes beyond clarification) would be the change for type="form" from SHOULD to MUST for @type

  221. jonas’

    but the most crucial one (which goes beyond clarification) would be the change for type="form" from SHOULD to MUST for field@type

  222. jonas’

    (for me anyways)

  223. adiaholic_ has left

  224. flow

    well, if you believe that 'form' type form fields must always have had field type annotations, then the change from SHOULD to MUST is not really a change in the spec

  225. flow

    it's merly a clarification

  226. flow

    (field type annotations for fields other than text-single that is)

  227. jonas’

    flow, so you’re trying to second-guess the intentions of the original authors?

  228. flow

    reading a spec, you always "guess" the intentions of authors

  229. jonas’

    the intent of using RFC 2119 language is to reduce the guessing

  230. jonas’

    I think you need a pretty strong argument beyond "it might’ve been the intention" when changing RFC 2119 language in a Final spec.

  231. flow

    if your reading is different than mine, then yes, this means that it was previously allowed that fields other than text-single in 'form' type forms come without type annotation

  232. flow

    and now is no longer

  233. jonas’

    I fail to see how this is a matter of reading. It is 100% clear that there is a SHOULD and not a MUST.

  234. jonas’

    there is no ambiguity in the language I can see here. Yes, it is unfortunate that omission of the field@type is allowed, but that’s the text-as-written and it wasn’t caught in either the CFE or the LC leading up to the XEPs Final state.

  235. jonas’

    I don’t see any wiggle-room to interpret this text by itself so that `MUST` was intended.

  236. jonas’

    the only way to justify the replacement based on an "intention" argument would be to get input from the original authors, but *even then* I don’t think that we should change a Final spec when we can very easily see opposite behaviour.

  237. Zash

    SHOULD is still pretty strong

  238. flow

    Zash, not sure if "pretty strong" is any better than, "may or may be not annotated"

  239. MattJ

    Not sure of the context, but indeed 'SHOULD' is more or less equivalent if you're a consumer of the protocol

  240. jonas’

    equivalent to what?

  241. MattJ

    'MUST', sorry

  242. jonas’

    MattJ, for your context: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972/files vs. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/971/files

  243. jonas’

    anyways, we spent 1/3 of the normal meeting timeframe on this.

  244. jonas’

    I’ll call for votes now, if you see further need for discussion, please take it to the list

  245. jonas’

    I’m going to start with the (probably) simpler one. Noting that if council accepts both PRs, the Editor will ask for a way to resolve the resulting conflict.

  246. jonas’

    4a I) PR#972: XEP-0004: Clarify that 'result' forms must have explicit field types

  247. Zash


  248. flow

    I think this distracts from the real motivation of the PR: should 'submit' type forms require type annotations? I'd like to hear the opinion of the council members (and others of course)

  249. jonas’

    I am -1 on PR#972, because it changes a strongly-worded RFC 2119 business rule without sufficient rationale and while evidence of behaviour, which would then be non-compliant, exists.

  250. jonas’

    flow, we can discuss this in AOB if you like

  251. vanitasvitae has left

  252. daniel was briefly confused by the change of order

  253. daniel


  254. flow

    I think this distracts from the real motivation of the PR: should 'result' type forms require type annotations? I'd like to hear the opinion of the council members (and others of course)

  255. jonas’

    daniel, rationale?

  256. daniel

    not significant enough to change the normative language of a final xep

  257. jonas’

    daniel, thanks

  258. jonas’

    4a II) PR#971: XEP-0004: Clarify field type omission for 'submit' and 'result' form field types

  259. jonas’

    I think I’m going to be on-list for that one, since I can’t read the diff well and I need to do this closely.

  260. Zash

    also on-list

  261. daniel

    on list

  262. Zash fiddles with xep-to-markdown convertsion, in order to get a nicer comparison

  263. jonas’


  264. jonas’

    4b) PR#969: XEP-0045 v1.33.0 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/969 Abstract: Clarify that the 307 status code should not be used alongside 333 for user disconnects (re-do of PR#926) See-Also: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/926

  265. Zash

    Mmmm, an interdiff would be nice

  266. jonas’

    note that the diff between #926 and #969 is only s/recommended/advisable/ in that one line

  267. vanitasvitae has joined

  268. jonas’

    I am +1 on that one

  269. Zash


  270. adiaholic_ has joined

  271. daniel


  272. jonas’


  273. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  274. jonas’

    dwd has some

  275. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  276. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  277. jonas’

    (this time, no vacation, so I’m less likely to forget :))

  278. daniel

    +1w wfm

  279. Zash

    +1w wfm

  280. jonas’


  281. jonas’

    7) AOB

  282. jonas’

    flow has some, maybe

  283. jonas’

    but first I’d like to ask daniel and Zash if they’re ok with extending by at least 5 minutes to make up for my lateness, or longer if we need to

  284. flow

    well as #972 is rejected, I assume that nobody wants the requirement that 'result' forms have to carry type annotations

  285. vanitasvitae has left

  286. flow

    which comes not unexpected, I think I wrote somewhere that I too fear that the ship has sailed

  287. Zash

    Sure, but no promises of being fully awake.

  288. jonas’

    flow, I don’t want the requirement for type='form'

  289. jonas’

    because it’s clearly written as being SHOULD

  290. jonas’

    have to read up on type='result'

  291. flow

    I hear you, and that appears to the the actualy discussion

  292. flow

    which is suprising to me, because I believe that this would be consens

  293. flow

    and that this is the intention of the text currently written, although I also see that it could be interpreted otherwhise

  294. flow

    and that this is the intention of the text currently written, although I also see that it could be interpreted otherwise

  295. jonas’

    ok, so, for type='result', it is currently a MAY

  296. flow

    For data forms of type "form", each <field/> element SHOULD possess a 'type' attribute that defines the data "type" of the field data (if no 'type' is specified, the default is "text-single");

  297. jonas’

    raising that to a MUST would at least cause issues for new implementations

  298. flow

    that is the sentence in question

  299. jonas’

    raising that to a MUST would at least cause issues for new receiving implementations

  300. jonas’

    flow, not ßquite, the important part for type='result' is missing: > […]; fields provided in the context of other forms types MAY possess a 'type' attribute as well.

  301. Zash

    In general, if you are confident that the receiver of the form, regardless of type, knows the "schema", then including that metadata seems redundant, and thus okay to leave out.

  302. jonas’

    (I’m more on the line of "keep it there always" because it’s easier to do validation then, but ok)

  303. flow

    jonas’, right, let's focus on 'form' type form and if their fields are required to have type annotations

  304. jonas’

    flow, you were asking about 'result' earlier tho

  305. jonas’

    which is it?

  306. flow

    as I wrote, the ship has sailed now that #972 was vetoed

  307. jonas’

    because for 'form' I think the matter is 100% clear that they SHOULD have annotations, which is not a MUST, nor a MAY

  308. jonas’

    but #972 was vetoed (from my side) because of 'form', not anything else

  309. flow

    sorry, I meant #971

  310. jonas’

    #971 wasn’t vetoed

  311. jonas’

    everyone is on-list about #971

  312. jonas’

    but I note that I didn’t get any feedback from either Zash or daniel about extending the meeting, so I’m going to close now; we can continue discussion in xsf@ or on-list

  313. jonas’

    8) Ite meeting est

  314. jonas’

    Thanks everyone, and sorry for being late. Next time when I’m on vacation, I’ll try to set up an alarm clock.

  315. Zash


  316. sonny has left

  317. sonny has joined

  318. susmit88 has left

  319. susmit88 has joined

  320. vanitasvitae has joined

  321. susmit88 has left

  322. susmit88 has joined

  323. Wojtek has joined

  324. daniel has left

  325. debacle has left

  326. daniel has joined

  327. susmit88 has left

  328. susmit88 has joined

  329. adiaholic_ has left

  330. adiaholic_ has joined

  331. SamWhited has left

  332. susmit88 has left

  333. susmit88 has joined

  334. adiaholic_ has left

  335. adiaholic_ has joined

  336. vanitasvitae has left

  337. vanitasvitae has joined

  338. adiaholic_ has left

  339. adiaholic_ has joined

  340. susmit88 has left

  341. susmit88 has joined

  342. sonny has left

  343. debacle has joined

  344. susmit88 has left

  345. susmit88 has joined

  346. daniel has left

  347. daniel has joined

  348. vanitasvitae has left

  349. vanitasvitae has joined

  350. vanitasvitae has left

  351. vanitasvitae has joined

  352. susmit88 has left

  353. susmit88 has joined

  354. susmit88 has left

  355. susmit88 has joined

  356. Wojtek has left

  357. Wojtek has joined

  358. daniel has left

  359. daniel has joined

  360. susmit88 has left

  361. susmit88 has joined

  362. susmit88 has left

  363. susmit88 has joined

  364. daniel has left

  365. daniel has joined

  366. susmit88 has left

  367. susmit88 has joined

  368. Tobias has left

  369. susmit88 has left

  370. susmit88 has joined

  371. adiaholic_ has left

  372. adiaholic_ has joined

  373. daniel has left

  374. daniel has joined

  375. susmit88 has left

  376. susmit88 has joined

  377. robertooo has left

  378. robertooo has joined

  379. daniel has left

  380. daniel has joined

  381. neox has left

  382. neox has joined

  383. adiaholic_ has left

  384. adiaholic_ has joined

  385. debacle has left

  386. neox has left

  387. susmit88 has left

  388. susmit88 has joined

  389. paul has left

  390. daniel has left

  391. daniel has joined

  392. stpeter has left

  393. sonny has joined