jonas’let’s do an allround ping ... Ge0rG, Zash, dwd, daniel.
ZashPerfect timeing, just started preparing dinner.
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
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
dwdI have appeared.
jonas’assuming no modifications
ZashPossible AOB: What's up with reactions &c
jonas’3) (No) Editor’s Update
I’m still catching up on things
jonas’Zash, I hope I’ll remember that until the AOB section
jonas’4) Items for voting
jonas’4a) XEP-0060: Disallow '=' and ';' in NodeIDs to allow use in URIs and refer to PRECIS Stringprep
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.
dwdThe node id is meant to be URL-encoded, surely?
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.
jonas’the on-list is s.t. the author still has a chance to defend themselves
dwdI'll go -1. If I'm being an idiot, vanitasvitae knows where to find me. :-)
jonas’I stopped reading at that point, I’m also uncertain about the correctness of the statements w.r.t. the stringprepping and stuff
jonas’dwd, that’s not a valid reasoning for a -1 ;P
Zash-1. The URI bit seems wrong and the PRECIS part ought to have been a separate PR.
jonas’that’s true for sure, Zash
jonas’the second part is true for sure, Zash
ZashI can on-list until we get a comment from an URI expert :)
jonas’5) Pending Votes
jonas’I think everything expired while I was away and AFAICT no new votes have been started?
jonas’I didn’t see anything from scanning the minutes or the SoD
jonas’so I’m assuming that’s true
jonas’6) Date of Next
jonas’hands the mic to Zash
dwdShould we be doing a drum-roll?
ZashReactions 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)·
ZashI'm wondering what's status of all that? It's been quiet since early this year.
ZashThat's the one.
jonas’I think the folks involved got hit not just by the covid fallout
jonas’I seem to recall Kev apologising in xsf@ because the year has been quite terrible for him.
jonas’(maybe we don’t need the above statement that explicitly in the minutes)
dwdWell, 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.
dwdThat 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.
jonas’Does anyone want to put a hat on for this?
ZashAnything we can do other than wait for relevant authors to recover?
jonas’technically, there is a lot we can do
jonas’the question is if we find someone to do it
dwdBut 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.
jonas’dwd, maybe you can poke the original author folks for a collaboration.
jonas’on the spec that is
jonas’that’s probably better, even if they cannot implement it right away, than you going alone
dwdjonas’, Well, the only feedback I had from them was that they didn't like it.
ZashI got the impression that they did not like fastening very much.
dwdI think their argument was strictly that there should be no generic support for anything.
jonas’so I suggest that you, dwd, with a concrete implementation case, set up a call with them to discuss how to move forward
jonas’call because high-bandwidth will be better for resolving this conflict IMO
jonas’dwd, do you think that’d work?
jonas’(oh, now I also see typing notifications)
Ge0rGLike the call about message routing and persistence that we had earlier this year?
jonas’Ge0rG, hi, welcome, we missed you too, thanks for this constructive and not at all passive aggressive comment!
dwdIn 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.
jonas’impressions can be misleading when carried over email
Ge0rGMaybe it could work by pinging them in the xsf@ MUC?
dwdeta, 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.
Ge0rGI think there were also limits pointed out to what can be reasonably fastened
dwdjonas’, 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).
jonas’dwd, see, that’s exactly what I’d like to avoid
jonas’there is enough impression about the council/xsf/standards process being hostile to spec authors sometimes
jonas’and I don’t like de-facto standards because of implementations appearing
ZashMaybe all this is premature genericness and we should just start with something simpler so we can Second System Effect to the max later? :)
dwdZash, Go ahead and design a concrete proposal.
jonas’what about the original Reactions proposal?
jonas’it seemed very simple to me
dwdjonas’, 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.
dwdjonas’, Hence MAM-FC, which should address both cases.
dwdjonas’, But since it didn't handle another imaginary case involving clapping for blog posts, one person complained.
Ge0rGWhat kind of interactions with archiving beyond a special parser for the reference syntax in your MAM implementation?
pep.What if people just have different use-cases and some things are not supposed to interact? (just asking)
dwdIf you don't like my design, PLEASE make a counter proposal.
pep.they made one already
pep.an original* proposal
ZashHow about we wrap up the meeting and continue in xsf@?
dwdNo, 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.
jonas’that sounds like a reasonable proposal
jonas’closing the meeting sounds like a reasonable proposal
ZashSeems there are still unresolved issues that needs to be worked out
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’please move the discussion to xsf@, the authors are also more likely to be active there I think
ZashThanks jonas’, Tedd, et all
Ge0rGWhat about AOAOBs?
dwdGe0rG, Did you want to talk about carbons?
jonas’Ge0rG, running out of meeting time :)
Ge0rGI wanted to report from the Board meeting and remind of CS21
jonas’Ge0rG, do that here and now then
Ge0rGLast 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.
Ge0rGThe idea to have a compliance page on the home page was approved and Seve kinda sorta volunteered to take care of it
Ge0rGAlso it's time to move forward with the CS21 XEP so that we don't end up with it published some time in 2021
Ge0rGdaniel: any news on the A/V ETA?
danielI'm still in the process of moving
danielBut once I'm done I'll take care of that
Ge0rGWould it make sense to give the XEP a number before that?
dwdI 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.
Ge0rGIn that case, jonas’ please put it up for vote
dwdAre we done?
vanitasvitaeThanks for discussing my PR. I aggree that URL encoding the item ID makes much more sense :)