XMPP Council - 2021-01-13

  1. adiaholic has joined

  2. paul has left

  3. neox has left

  4. debacle has left

  5. SouL has joined

  6. pprrks has left

  7. pprrks has joined

  8. SouL has left

  9. SouL has joined

  10. B has left

  11. B has joined

  12. paul has joined

  13. Tobias has joined

  14. jonas’

    theadmiralty, explain your amusement please

  15. theadmiralty

    jonas’: the portion regarding zash and ipv6

  16. mdosch has left

  17. mdosch has joined

  18. Guus has left

  19. SouL has left

  20. SouL has joined

  21. Guus has joined

  22. neox has joined

  23. pprrks has left

  24. pprrks has joined

  25. neox has left

  26. moparisthebest has left

  27. neox has joined

  28. moparisthebest has joined

  29. debacle has joined

  30. Syndace has left

  31. Syndace has joined

  32. neox has left

  33. moparisthebest has left

  34. moparisthebest has joined

  35. SouL has left

  36. SouL has joined

  37. pprrks has left

  38. pprrks has joined

  39. neox has joined

  40. Guus has left

  41. Guus has joined

  42. SouL has left

  43. SouL has joined

  44. neox has left

  45. neox has joined

  46. debacle has left

  47. Wojtek has joined

  48. stpeter has joined

  49. debacle has joined

  50. Ge0rG

    Looks like I'll be late to the party. I'm having fun yelling at incompetent consultants.

  51. susmit88 has joined

  52. mdosch

    > theadmiralty, explain your amusement please The Tedd style of writing boring facts down in an amusing way probably. 😃

  53. Zash

    Strategic brewing of coffee successful

  54. Ge0rG

    Coffee overflow.

  55. mdosch

    > Coffee overflow. Terrible. Get bigger coffee cups?

  56. mdosch

    > Coffee overflow. Terrible. Get bigger coffee cups!

  57. Ge0rG

    mdosch: I have a 370ml cup already. The overflow happens in my body

  58. Ge0rG

    Wow, the call ended just on time for the Council, only 27 minutes overtime.

  59. Zash

    3 minutes of rest!

  60. jonas’

    similar here

  61. jonas’

    also fun: I still need to write emails

  62. jonas’

    I’m going to be distracted, I’m sorry for that

  63. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  64. daniel


  65. Zash


  66. jonas’


  67. dwd


  68. Ge0rG is in a post-conference-call phone-call

  69. jonas’ explaining to a customer how the internet works and that we cannot inform them every time when they won’t be able to reach our site because some transit network fubar’d

  70. jonas’


  71. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  72. jonas’

    any notes?

  73. dwd

    C sharp.

  74. jonas’

    (this time with correct date!)

  75. Zash

    What Tedd pointed out earlier

  76. jonas’

    yep, that

  77. jonas’


  78. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  79. jonas’

    - Proposed XMPP Extensions: - DOAP usage in XMPP - OMEMO Media Sharing

  80. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  81. Ge0rG

    I started reading the agenda multiple times, but then got distracted over and over again. Sorry.

  82. jonas’

    4a) Proposed XMPP Extension: DOAP usage in XMPP URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/doap-usage-in-xmpp.html Abstract: This specification defines how XMPP projects can provide a machine-readable description of their abilities, and how external entities can interact with it.

  83. jonas’

    I am on list, I did not have a minute of non-work time today yet.

  84. Zash

    Also on-list

  85. Ge0rG


  86. daniel

    are XEPs the right format to specify something that isn’t an extension?

  87. daniel

    i mean as a spec the document looks fine

  88. jonas’

    daniel, if it defines how XEPs are to be used or referenced to, I think it’s borderline OK

  89. dwd

    I hadn't seen the submission. Not sure what track this should be. Happy for it to be a XEP, though - perhaps even Procedural?

  90. Zash

    Informational, not Standards Track, so I think that's fine

  91. Zash

    dwd, hmm

  92. jonas’

    I’d suggest informational, it’s not a procedure of the XSF or the Council

  93. Zash

    or is it, if it touches on management of the website?

  94. dwd

    I'll got for "on-list" as far as a vote is concerned, but I'm heavily leaning toward +1.

  95. daniel


  96. jonas’

    Zash, it doesn’t seem to

  97. dwd

    Zash, I can see arguments for it being STandards Track, as it's trying to define an interoperable wire format for the community.

  98. jonas’

    depends on which wires, I suppose

  99. jonas’

    but true, the typical Last Call / CFE questions would apply to this one

  100. jonas’

    I suggest we bring that question up to the list

  101. Ge0rG

    I don't have a strong opinion either way

  102. Ge0rG

    However, with Standards Track, I'll start pondering about namespace versioning the schema.org schema

  103. jonas’

    (sent the ProtoXEP mail just now, forgot that yesterday, so we have a thread to go on)

  104. jonas’

    moving on

  105. adiaholic has left

  106. jonas’

    4b) Proposed XMPP Extension: OMEMO Media Sharing URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/omemo-media-sharing.html Abstract: An informal way of sharing media files despite limitations in the OMEMO encryption Note: We had this one as Standards Track in the past, but it was resubmitted as Historical.

  107. adiaholic has joined

  108. jonas’

    the first fun question is whether Link Mauve got the IPR agreement from daniel to resubmit his work under a different Track

  109. Ge0rG

    What happened to the "this one as Standards Track in the past" document?

  110. jonas’

    rejected by council

  111. jonas’

    because evilness

  112. daniel

    didnt council back then decided that moving it to a different track isn’t enough?

  113. daniel

    because i vaguely remember offering to do this but it was rejected

  114. jonas’


  115. daniel

    so if we now +1 we overrule previous council decisions

  116. Ge0rG

    so technically it was submitted as Standards Track, but never landed there?

  117. jonas’

    no, not 2018-05-30

  118. jonas’

    still finding it

  119. Ge0rG

    on-list, I'll wait for the XEP-0001 taskforce to decide what our legitimate options are.

  120. Zash

    same, on-list

  121. jonas’


  122. daniel

    can we at least fix the example before publishing it

  123. daniel

    on list too

  124. jonas’


  125. jonas’

    finally, there you go. I think the gist is historical would be ok ("although not fond of")

  126. jonas’

    any other votes?

  127. dwd

    So, Informational was rejected but Historical was not.

  128. jonas’

    I am +1

  129. jonas’

    (with any editorial fixes needed)

  130. jonas’

    better to have it documented than not

  131. jonas’

    dwd, do you want to vote?

  132. dwd

    I think we need to figure out what to do with the URL scheme. It feels like treading on another SDO's territory.

  133. jonas’

    I think the document is rather clear on that

  134. Ge0rG

    I don't think there are any ambitions do establish that as a generic URL scheme

  135. dwd

    Right, but technically it would still need registering nonetheless.

  136. dwd

    OK, I'm on-list.

  137. Ge0rG

    dwd: I don't think so.

  138. dwd

    But I'll muse over this on-list instead of just being silent.

  139. daniel

    jonas’, what would be the best way to fix the examples?

  140. jonas’

    daniel, send me a diff?

  141. jonas’

    either as PR or mail or whatever works for you

  142. dwd

    daniel, FWIW, I'm perfectly happy to accept with broken examples and fix them.

  143. Ge0rG

    dwd: IMO, defining a non-standard URL scheme for the use in a specific, strictly defined context is fair game

  144. jonas’

    I can incorporate (rebase/am) it to the released or the protoxep version, whichever works for me

  145. daniel

    oh right. i can just PR the inbox

  146. jonas’

    We should all read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595

  147. daniel

    i was briefly confused.never mind

  148. jonas’

    I am running out of time a little today, so I’ll push forward, sorry for that

  149. jonas’

    4c) Cancelled, thanks theTedd

  150. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  151. jonas’

    a bunch of votes are pending on the MUC Mention Notifications ProtoXEP

  152. jonas’

    does anyone want to cast votes here?

  153. jonas’

    (it expires next week)

  154. Ge0rG


  155. dwd

    I think I plus-oned that already.

  156. jonas’

    dwd, that is correct :)

  157. jonas’

    I assume noone wants to cast further votes here, moving on

  158. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  159. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  160. Zash

    +1w wfm

  161. daniel

    +1w wfm

  162. dwd


  163. Ge0rG

    +1w wfm

  164. jonas’


  165. jonas’

    7) AOB

  166. jonas’


  167. dwd

    daniel, did you formally give permission to resubmit that OMEMO one?

  168. daniel


  169. dwd

    daniel, OK, so unless and until you do that, we can't accept it anyway.

  170. daniel

    how would i do that?

  171. Ge0rG

    dwd: isn't IPR permission explicitly required when submitting a ProtoXEP?

  172. Ge0rG

    so even when the ProtoXEP is rejected, the permission remains?

  173. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yes, but we'll have asked Link Mauve, as I understand things, rather than daniel.

  174. jonas’

    no, it is "upon acceptance", Ge0rG

  175. dwd

    Ge0rG, Ah, no. If we don't accept it, I assume that permission expires.

  176. Ge0rG

    Ah, thanks

  177. dwd

    Ge0rG, Or at least, I don't think it's safe to assume otherwise.

  178. jonas’

    dwd, formally, Link Mauve is liable here because they accepted the XSF IPR when reproposing ;)

  179. dwd

    jonas’, True.

  180. jonas’

    though we are now acutely aware that there is a problem

  181. jonas’

    daniel, I think it’d be good and sufficient if you stated on-list that you are OK with resubmission in the protoxep thread.

  182. dwd

    daniel, To give permission, I assume just a message here or an email would be enough.

  183. daniel

    yes i'm fine with resubmitting it

  184. dwd

    daniel, Replying to the submission email would probably be most sensible. Assuming of course that you want to give permission.

  185. jonas’

    daniel, thank you very much :)

  186. dwd

    Note for Tedd: Please make sure that's minuted.

  187. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  188. daniel

    none here

  189. Zash

    I got nothing

  190. jonas’


  191. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  192. daniel

    Thanks jonas’. Thanks everyone

  193. jonas’

    gotta run, see you later

  194. Zash

    Thanks all

  195. Lance has joined

  196. Lance has left

  197. Link Mauve

    daniel, do you accept me resubmitting your ProtoXEP under a different track?

  198. daniel

    i do. and that's already on the record

  199. Link Mauve

    Oh sorry.

  200. Link Mauve

    Perfect then. :)

  201. adiaholic has left

  202. adiaholic has joined

  203. adiaholic has left

  204. B has left

  205. B has joined

  206. stpeter has left

  207. adiaholic has joined

  208. adiaholic has left

  209. SouL has left

  210. SouL has joined

  211. Tobias has left

  212. stpeter has joined

  213. adiaholic has joined

  214. susmit88 has left

  215. adiaholic has left

  216. adiaholic has joined

  217. stpeter has left

  218. stpeter has joined

  219. Wojtek has left

  220. debacle has left

  221. neox has left

  222. SouL has left