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 Hi
  175. eta hi daniel :p
  176. vanitasvitae Hello!
  177. flow huhu
  178. eta oh is there a meeting
  179. eta oops
  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’ ehh
  190. jonas’ yeah
  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’ thanks
  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 No
  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 on-list
  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 -1
  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’ thanks
  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 +1
  270. adiaholic_ has joined
  271. daniel +1
  272. jonas’ thanks
  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’ \o/
  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 Thanks
  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