XMPP Council - 2020-07-29

If only somebody had warned us.

I may be late by a few minutes

Let's see if we have anybody else, just to help the chair

Here, but so tired

1) Roll Call

Looks like there is no dwd...

daniel?

here

thank you, Ge0rG

hi jonas’, looks like we have a quorum, if Zash is more than half awake at least.

let’s assume that he is

2) Agenda Bashing

any modifications?

lgtm

same

3) Editor’s update

congrats MattJ for getting 0.7.0 of XEP-0313 through the pipes

4) Items for Voting

4a) Revisit PR#963: XEP-0178: Clarify SASL-EXTERNAL specification when s2s auth fails URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/963 Abstract: A while back it was discussed that XEP-0178 (SASL-EXTERNAL) for s2s was kinda misleading - it says that server should close connection if authentication fails but it seems that "everyone" (at least Prosody[0] and ejabberd) actually fallbacks to dialback in that case. ✏

so there was some list discussion on this and we should cast a vote

I’m on-list though

on-list is a sane default.

hi dwd

Sorry, server issues. :-(

hi dwd

I’d be curious about your takeaway from the list discussion on PR#963 (see above)

Still +1 for (4a).

The attack was predicated on a compromised key.

in which case SASL EXTERNAL based on TLS PKIitself would already be an issue, right? ✏

in which case SASL EXTERNAL based on TLS PKI itself would already be an issue, right? ✏

Yes.

I see

Zash, vote?

dwd, thanks

Let's say +1

alright

5) Pending Votes

we have a bunch of pending votes on various things

Yes, I'd like to cast some

Ge0rG, go ahead!

-1 to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972

that was easy.

oh, right. The rationale: would change normative language of a Final XEP without a damn good reason

re #971 I'm not even sure how it is a clarification, as it's actually *removing* text from the XEP

+1 to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/969

Was there any list discussion of #971 yet? Everybody is on-list on it

no

I considered it editorial actually

but I decided to look closely again after last week’s discussion, didn’t have the time tho

roger.

I think the PR removes noise, which makes things easier to read

I think I'll on-list it as well, with a gut feeling of +0

I have lots of pending votes - sorry, work has been spiking again. I'll set aside some time now to go through them.

dwd, thanks

sorry for the text screenshot, but here’s a rendered word-diff:

https://share.dreckshal.de/dpm/Y0v3cLNMzizbVb6HOvfNMw7vnyhTFfLLGEvV_QssLA4.png

looking closely, I noticed that removes scarcely-defined ("MAY") behaviour for type="cancel"

other than that, I think it makes the text easier to read

since the duplication of MAY and OPTIONAL is folded into a single OPTIONAL

dwd, now as in "right now"?

It looks - well, it looks confusing anyway, but it looks as if 971 restricts the OPTIONAL to only submit/result, whereas prior to that type is always a MAY, but particularly OPTIONAL for submit.

jonas’, Not in the meeting. I'll go through afterward on list.

dwd, thanks!

OPTIONAL == MAY

ftr

so the only change is for type="cancel", which was in the previous text covered by "fields provided in the context of other forms types MAY possess a 'type' attribute as well.", which is now gone

how about I make the editors add the "cancel" to the enumeration in the last sentence?

(or flow)

Hmmm

Yeah, so OPTIONAL == MAY (and maybe === depending on your language of choice), but it does read as though submit is more optional, for types, than others.

which is where I think the clarification actually comes in handy

either way, I’m under a bit of time pressure, so let’s take this to the list or to the next meeting

The problem is, sort of not really. The text says "type" is optional, and if it's not present it means "text-single". But you might not get it on submit because you know the type is.

speaking of which: 6) Date of Next

Which we do. It's "text-single".

dwd, oh!

yeah, definitely needs more discussion

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm2.

Ge0rG, ^ ✏

jonas’, And yeah, I'm taking a particularly obtuse reading of that text, but it's not overhwleming in its clarity.

+1W WFM

7) AOB

just very quickly, dwd, will you take up that video call thing again?

jonas’, Yes, I'll try to sort that as well.

thanks

any other AOB which fits in <5min?

taking the absence of typing notifications as well as the time as a "no"

8) Ite Meeting Est

thank you everyone

thanks

Thanks jonas’!

(and of course, thanks tedd)