either way, despite this being a surprise agenda for Zash (and maybe others?), let’s move on
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
- ProtoXEPs:
- Message Archive Management Preferences
- Pubsub Message Archive Management
Both have been created as a spin-off from the most recent MAM update, but
due to human error they were stuck in the PR queue.
jonas’
so yay to MattJ for getting those up
jonas’
4) Items for voting
jonas’
4a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Archive Management Preferences
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-mam-prefs.html
Abstract: This document defines a protocol to control a user's archiving preferences.
Note: This is in context of the MAM split-off in the most recent MAM release.
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
I have issues with that proto-XEP.
jonas’
I have formal issues
jonas’
Ge0rG, -v?
Ge0rG
Namely, two issues: a) experience shows that the default should be "all" and not "roster"; and b) I've stated multiple times before, in the context of 0313, that we need a way for the server to indicate to the client that no _explicit_ MAM storage prefs configuration has happened yet, so that the client can show a GDPR opt-in dialog
Ge0rG
oh, looks like that one bot with thousands of roster items has just restarted, making my server lag for a minute or two
dwd
Ge0rG, Is that sufficient to block publication of something that we have previously published?
jonas’
same question
Zash
If it's broken out of 313 is it not an editorial thing?
Ge0rG
oh, +1 to 4a
jonas’
also +1
jonas’
Zash, I don’t think so
dwd
Ge0rG, I mean, I agree with what you're saying, but...
jonas’
it will be easier to handle those concerns in a document separate from '313
Ge0rG
dwd: sorry, I intended to +1 immediately but then got distracted by the overly long line, and then by the server lag
jonas’
so having this as an indepentent XEP is the way to go
Ge0rG
it is using MAM's namepsace, right?
dwd
I have one concern over this XEP - it's the same namespace as XEP-0313.
jonas’
dwd, I think that’s a feature, not a bug
Ge0rG
not that I'd consider that to be a problem, just that it's forking off of :2
dwd
And Ge0rG has managed to say so immediately prior to my saying so.
jonas’
I’ll try to keep an eye on it and have it use a different namespace once a bumping change happens.
dwd
I think it *is* a feature, but - exactly what jonas’ says.
jonas’
maybe also CC @ MattJ so that he’s aware
jonas’
dwd, Zash, votes?
dwd
I might even go so far as to say it should be changed *now*, but with a note saying this was previously offered under a different namespace.
jonas’
ok, I disagree on that one
dwd
So a cautious +1.
dwd
jonas’, Not a hill for me to die upon.
jonas’
ok, let’s not have that discussion now then :)
jonas’
(there have been *plenty* of pointless discussions today already, no need to add to it)
MattJ
FWIW I see this protocol as a dead-end as far as I'm concerned (i.e. no bumps will happen)
Zash
On-list
jonas’
Zash, thanks
jonas’
MattJ, curious, why?
MattJ
Giving users fine-grained control over archiving has... consequences
jonas’
MattJ, ok, maybe also a discussion for the list.
jonas’
can you put that as a reply to the ProtoXEP announcement maybe?
MattJ
Yeah, I was going to start one in response to the thread
MattJ
Yes :)
jonas’
lovely, thanks
jonas’
moving on
MattJ
I started writing it but didn't have time so put it aside
jonas’
4b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Message Archive Management
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-pubsub-mam.html
Abstract: This document defines a protocol to query and control a pubsub node's message archive.
Note: This is in context of the MAM split-off in the most recent MAM release.
daniel
+1
Zash
On-list
jonas’
+1, though it also needs some love
dwd
+1
Ge0rG
+1
jonas’
that was quick’n’easy
jonas’
4c) PR#976: XEP-0060: Add missing querytype 'retrieve' action and 'item' key to registry submission
URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/976
Abstract: The PubSub specification is missing registry entries for the 'retrieve' action and the 'item' key. This PR adds those to the query type registry submission.
See-Also: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-August/037679.html
jonas’
I’m not sure if this shouldn’t even be editorial, but I wanted to make sure
daniel
Seems editorial to me
Ge0rG
+1, also what's the overall state of the registry?
jonas’
Ge0rG, don’t ask
dwd
+1 if we need a +1.
jonas’
+1
daniel
+1
Zash
+1
Ge0rGdoesn't ask
jonas’
swift
jonas’
4d) PR#975: XEP-0004: Clarify field type omission for 'submit' and 'result' form field types, Version 2
URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/975
See-Also: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-August/037664.html
See-Also: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/971
jonas’
the never-ending PR chain
Zash
+1
jonas’
+1
jonas’
please don’t just +1 because I proposed this PR convincingly ;)
I’ll be on vacation in the week of the 9th of september, so I’ll not be able to chair or prepare an agenda. That’s just as a heads up so that someone can step forward to take that on.
jonas’
In addition, september will in general be "interesting times" here, so there may be times where the agenda has more jitter or I’ll need to delegate that and/or chairing
jonas’
in october, stuff should gradually resume to normality
Ge0rG
I might be on vacation in the two weeks from Sep 14th or any other two weeks thereafter, depending on conditions outside of my control.
jonas’
Any other AOB?
stpeter
I'm reviewing https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/905/ now :-)