-
Ge0rG
If only somebody had warned us.
-
jonas’
I may be late by a few minutes
-
Ge0rG
Let's see if we have anybody else, just to help the chair
-
Zash
Here, but so tired
-
Ge0rG
1) Roll Call
-
Ge0rG
Looks like there is no dwd...
-
Ge0rG
daniel?
-
jonas’
here
-
jonas’
thank you, Ge0rG
-
Ge0rG
hi jonas’, looks like we have a quorum, if Zash is more than half awake at least.
-
jonas’
let’s assume that he is
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
any modifications?
-
Ge0rG
lgtm
-
Zash
same
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s update
-
jonas’
congrats MattJ for getting 0.7.0 of XEP-0313 through the pipes
-
jonas’
4) Items for Voting
-
jonas’
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.✎ -
jonas’
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. ✏
-
jonas’
so there was some list discussion on this and we should cast a vote
-
jonas’
I’m on-list though
-
Ge0rG
on-list is a sane default.
-
Ge0rG
hi dwd
-
dwd
Sorry, server issues. :-(
-
jonas’
hi dwd
-
jonas’
I’d be curious about your takeaway from the list discussion on PR#963 (see above)
-
dwd
Still +1 for (4a).
-
dwd
The attack was predicated on a compromised key.
-
jonas’
in which case SASL EXTERNAL itself would already be an issue, right?✎ -
jonas’
in which case SASL EXTERNAL based on TLS PKIitself would already be an issue, right? ✏
-
jonas’
in which case SASL EXTERNAL based on TLS PKI itself would already be an issue, right? ✏
-
dwd
Yes.
-
jonas’
I see
-
jonas’
Zash, vote?
-
jonas’
dwd, thanks
-
Zash
Let's say +1
-
jonas’
alright
-
jonas’
5) Pending Votes
-
jonas’
we have a bunch of pending votes on various things
-
Ge0rG
Yes, I'd like to cast some
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, go ahead!
-
Ge0rG
-1 to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972
-
Ge0rG
that was easy.
-
Ge0rG
oh, right. The rationale: would change normative language of a Final XEP without a damn good reason
-
Ge0rG
re #971 I'm not even sure how it is a clarification, as it's actually *removing* text from the XEP
-
Ge0rG
+1 to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/969
-
Ge0rG
Was there any list discussion of #971 yet? Everybody is on-list on it
-
jonas’
no
-
jonas’
I considered it editorial actually
-
jonas’
but I decided to look closely again after last week’s discussion, didn’t have the time tho
-
Ge0rG
roger.
-
jonas’
I think the PR removes noise, which makes things easier to read
-
Ge0rG
I think I'll on-list it as well, with a gut feeling of +0
-
dwd
I have lots of pending votes - sorry, work has been spiking again. I'll set aside some time now to go through them.
-
jonas’
dwd, thanks
-
jonas’
sorry for the text screenshot, but here’s a rendered word-diff:
-
jonas’
https://share.dreckshal.de/dpm/Y0v3cLNMzizbVb6HOvfNMw7vnyhTFfLLGEvV_QssLA4.png
-
jonas’
looking closely, I noticed that removes scarcely-defined ("MAY") behaviour for type="cancel"
-
jonas’
other than that, I think it makes the text easier to read
-
jonas’
since the duplication of MAY and OPTIONAL is folded into a single OPTIONAL
-
jonas’
dwd, now as in "right now"?
-
dwd
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.
-
dwd
jonas’, Not in the meeting. I'll go through afterward on list.
-
jonas’
dwd, thanks!
-
jonas’
OPTIONAL == MAY
-
jonas’
ftr
-
jonas’
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
-
jonas’
how about I make the editors add the "cancel" to the enumeration in the last sentence?
-
jonas’
(or flow)
-
Zash
Hmmm
-
dwd
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.
-
jonas’
which is where I think the clarification actually comes in handy
-
jonas’
either way, I’m under a bit of time pressure, so let’s take this to the list or to the next meeting
-
dwd
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.
-
jonas’
speaking of which: 6) Date of Next
-
dwd
Which we do. It's "text-single".
-
jonas’
dwd, oh!
-
jonas’
yeah, definitely needs more discussion
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
Zash
+1w wfm
-
dwd
+1w wfm2.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG,✎ -
jonas’
Ge0rG, ^ ✏
-
dwd
jonas’, And yeah, I'm taking a particularly obtuse reading of that text, but it's not overhwleming in its clarity.
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
jonas’
7) AOB
-
jonas’
just very quickly, dwd, will you take up that video call thing again?
-
dwd
jonas’, Yes, I'll try to sort that as well.
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
any other AOB which fits in <5min?
-
jonas’
taking the absence of typing notifications as well as the time as a "no"
-
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
-
jonas’
thank you everyone
- jonas’ runs away
-
Zash
thanks
-
dwd
Thanks jonas’!
-
jonas’
(and of course, thanks tedd)
- Zash falls asleep