XMPP Council - 2020-09-23


  1. jonas’

    it is time

  2. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  3. jonas’

    Fear Not For I Have Returned

  4. jonas’

    let’s do an allround ping ... Ge0rG, Zash, dwd, daniel.

  5. Zash

    Here

  6. Zash

    Perfect timeing, just started preparing dinner.

  7. jonas’

    perfect!

  8. daniel

    Ho

  9. jonas’

    I was under the impression that we’d have a dwd today, but maybe he’ll appear. Either way, we’re quorum’d, so let’s continue

  10. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  11. jonas’

    any modifications?

  12. dwd

    I have appeared.

  13. jonas’

    weeeee

  14. jonas’

    assuming no modifications

  15. Zash

    Possible AOB: What's up with reactions &c

  16. jonas’

    3) (No) Editor’s Update I’m still catching up on things

  17. jonas’

    Zash, I hope I’ll remember that until the AOB section

  18. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  19. jonas’

    4a) XEP-0060: Disallow '=' and ';' in NodeIDs to allow use in URIs and refer to PRECIS Stringprep URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/983 Abstract: This PR limits node IDs by disallowing the characters '=' and ';'. The reason is that currently it is possible to forge possibly dangerous PubSub node IDs when used in URIs.

  20. dwd

    The node id is meant to be URL-encoded, surely?

  21. jonas’

    I was surprised by this and I’m going to be on-list with a default to -1 because: This is fixing the problem on the wrong end; the node ID should simply be URL-encoded.

  22. jonas’

    the on-list is s.t. the author still has a chance to defend themselves

  23. daniel

    On list

  24. dwd

    I'll go -1. If I'm being an idiot, vanitasvitae knows where to find me. :-)

  25. jonas’

    I stopped reading at that point, I’m also uncertain about the correctness of the statements w.r.t. the stringprepping and stuff

  26. jonas’

    dwd, that’s not a valid reasoning for a -1 ;P

  27. Zash

    -1. The URI bit seems wrong and the PRECIS part ought to have been a separate PR.

  28. jonas’

    that’s true for sure, Zash

  29. jonas’

    the second part is true for sure, Zash

  30. Zash

    I can on-list until we get a comment from an URI expert :)

  31. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  32. jonas’

    I think everything expired while I was away and AFAICT no new votes have been started?

  33. Zash

    Sounds plausible.

  34. jonas’

    I didn’t see anything from scanning the minutes or the SoD

  35. jonas’

    so I’m assuming that’s true

  36. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  37. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  38. dwd

    +1

  39. daniel

    +1w wfm

  40. Zash

    +1w wfm

  41. jonas’

    excellent

  42. jonas’

    7) AOB

  43. jonas’ hands the mic to Zash

  44. dwd

    Should we be doing a drum-roll?

  45. Zash

    Reactions came up in the Dino room the other day. From what I can scrape off of logs and lists, we're waiting for someone to figure out how it would work with ... that other XEP for attaching messages to other messages (name escapes me)·

  46. dwd

    Ah.

  47. Zash

    I'm wondering what's status of all that? It's been quiet since early this year.

  48. jonas’

    fastening

  49. Zash

    That's the one.

  50. jonas’

    I think the folks involved got hit not just by the covid fallout

  51. jonas’

    I seem to recall Kev apologising in xsf@ because the year has been quite terrible for him.

  52. jonas’

    (maybe we don’t need the above statement that explicitly in the minutes)

  53. dwd

    Well, we did, I think. Loosely, Kev proposed Fastening, we expanded that into MAM-FC, but we were expecting the original authors to use that for reactions.

  54. dwd

    That said, I have been somewhat crazily busy this year, and I know tere's an outstanding comment against MAM-FC with one of the Tigase folks pointing out that you can't use it for both paging and refresh-since.

  55. Zash

    Understandable.

  56. jonas’

    Does anyone want to put a hat on for this?

  57. Zash

    Anything we can do other than wait for relevant authors to recover?

  58. jonas’

    technically, there is a lot we can do

  59. jonas’

    the question is if we find someone to do it

  60. dwd

    But I do actually have to implement this. Since Doctors and Nurses want to react to things. So that means doing Reactions as well, which means someone writing that spec - I'd really rather it weren't me, but I can if needs be.

  61. jonas’

    dwd, maybe you can poke the original author folks for a collaboration.

  62. jonas’

    on the spec that is

  63. jonas’

    that’s probably better, even if they cannot implement it right away, than you going alone

  64. dwd

    jonas’, Well, the only feedback I had from them was that they didn't like it.

  65. Zash

    I got the impression that they did not like fastening very much.

  66. jonas’

    me too

  67. dwd

    I think their argument was strictly that there should be no generic support for anything.

  68. jonas’

    so I suggest that you, dwd, with a concrete implementation case, set up a call with them to discuss how to move forward

  69. jonas’

    call because high-bandwidth will be better for resolving this conflict IMO

  70. jonas’

    dwd, do you think that’d work?

  71. jonas’

    (oh, now I also see typing notifications)

  72. Ge0rG

    Like the call about message routing and persistence that we had earlier this year?

  73. eta

    what's MAM-FC?

  74. jonas’

    Ge0rG, hi, welcome, we missed you too, thanks for this constructive and not at all passive aggressive comment!

  75. dwd

    In all honesty I don't see any desire from them to work on a general solution in this space, which means there's zero common ground or even goal.

  76. jonas’

    eta, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0427.html

  77. jonas’

    dwd, I’d still suggest such a meeting

  78. jonas’

    impressions can be misleading when carried over email

  79. Ge0rG

    Maybe it could work by pinging them in the xsf@ MUC?

  80. dwd

    eta, A way of collating things-that-apply-to-other-messages like reactions, edits, receipts so they can be efficiently handled and archived in a generic way.

  81. Ge0rG

    I think there were also limits pointed out to what can be reasonably fastened

  82. dwd

    jonas’, Well, I can do when I have time. I'm likely to implement it before then and feed any findings from that back into the spec. (And also loop around the Tigase(?) folks).

  83. jonas’

    dwd, see, that’s exactly what I’d like to avoid

  84. jonas’

    there is enough impression about the council/xsf/standards process being hostile to spec authors sometimes

  85. jonas’

    and I don’t like de-facto standards because of implementations appearing

  86. Zash

    Maybe all this is premature genericness and we should just start with something simpler so we can Second System Effect to the max later? :)

  87. dwd

    Zash, Go ahead and design a concrete proposal.

  88. jonas’

    what about the original Reactions proposal?

  89. jonas’

    it seemed very simple to me

  90. dwd

    jonas’, I can't implement that on its own because of the interactions it would then have with archiving, which also cause us massive problems already with receipts/markers.

  91. dwd

    jonas’, Hence MAM-FC, which should address both cases.

  92. dwd

    jonas’, But since it didn't handle another imaginary case involving clapping for blog posts, one person complained.

  93. Ge0rG

    What kind of interactions with archiving beyond a special parser for the reference syntax in your MAM implementation?

  94. pep.

    What if people just have different use-cases and some things are not supposed to interact? (just asking)

  95. dwd

    If you don't like my design, PLEASE make a counter proposal.

  96. pep.

    they made one already

  97. pep.

    an original* proposal

  98. Zash

    How about we wrap up the meeting and continue in xsf@?

  99. dwd

    No, we have reactions on their own. That's trivial. We could have a collation for those, specifically, but then you have to have a specific collation for every kind of thing, which involves heavyweight stanza inspection and archiving design within the server, which is painful.

  100. jonas’

    that sounds like a reasonable proposal

  101. jonas’

    closing the meeting sounds like a reasonable proposal

  102. Zash

    Seems there are still unresolved issues that needs to be worked out

  103. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  104. jonas’

    please move the discussion to xsf@, the authors are also more likely to be active there I think

  105. Zash

    Thanks jonas’, Tedd, et all

  106. Ge0rG

    What about AOAOBs?

  107. Zash

    :O

  108. dwd

    Ge0rG, Did you want to talk about carbons?

  109. jonas’

    Ge0rG, running out of meeting time :)

  110. Ge0rG

    I wanted to report from the Board meeting and remind of CS21

  111. jonas’

    Ge0rG, do that here and now then

  112. Ge0rG

    Last week in the Board meeting it was established that The Designer apparently vanished and that anybody can move forward with any variant of Badges. Tedd hinted on doing some more work on this.

  113. Ge0rG

    The idea to have a compliance page on the home page was approved and Seve kinda sorta volunteered to take care of it

  114. Ge0rG

    Also it's time to move forward with the CS21 XEP so that we don't end up with it published some time in 2021

  115. Ge0rG

    daniel: any news on the A/V ETA?

  116. daniel

    No

  117. daniel

    I'm still in the process of moving

  118. daniel

    But once I'm done I'll take care of that

  119. Ge0rG

    Would it make sense to give the XEP a number before that?

  120. dwd

    Yes.

  121. dwd

    I mean, we know (I think) we want a CS21, so we should create the Experimental and bring it under XSF IPR as soon as we can on that basis.

  122. Ge0rG

    In that case, jonas’ please put it up for vote

  123. dwd

    Are we done?

  124. Ge0rG

    Yes

  125. vanitasvitae

    Thanks for discussing my PR. I aggree that URL encoding the item ID makes much more sense :)

  126. jonas’

    vanitasvitae, glad to hear that! :)