-
jonas’
theadmiralty, explain your amusement please
-
theadmiralty
jonas’: the portion regarding zash and ipv6
-
Ge0rG
Looks like I'll be late to the party. I'm having fun yelling at incompetent consultants.
-
mdosch
> theadmiralty, explain your amusement please The Tedd style of writing boring facts down in an amusing way probably. 😃
-
Zash
Strategic brewing of coffee successful
-
Ge0rG
Coffee overflow.
-
mdosch
> Coffee overflow. Terrible. Get bigger coffee cups?✎ -
mdosch
> Coffee overflow. Terrible. Get bigger coffee cups! ✏
-
Ge0rG
mdosch: I have a 370ml cup already. The overflow happens in my body
-
Ge0rG
Wow, the call ended just on time for the Council, only 27 minutes overtime.
-
Zash
3 minutes of rest!
-
jonas’
similar here
-
jonas’
also fun: I still need to write emails
-
jonas’
I’m going to be distracted, I’m sorry for that
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
-
daniel
Hi
-
Zash
Hello
-
jonas’
yay
-
dwd
Hiya
- Ge0rG is in a post-conference-call phone-call
- 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
-
jonas’
*ahem*
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
any notes?
-
dwd
C sharp.
-
jonas’
(this time with correct date!)
-
Zash
What Tedd pointed out earlier
-
jonas’
yep, that
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
-
jonas’
- Proposed XMPP Extensions: - DOAP usage in XMPP - OMEMO Media Sharing
-
jonas’
4) Items for Voting
-
Ge0rG
I started reading the agenda multiple times, but then got distracted over and over again. Sorry.
-
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.
-
jonas’
I am on list, I did not have a minute of non-work time today yet.
-
Zash
Also on-list
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
daniel
are XEPs the right format to specify something that isn’t an extension?
-
daniel
i mean as a spec the document looks fine
-
jonas’
daniel, if it defines how XEPs are to be used or referenced to, I think it’s borderline OK
-
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?
-
Zash
Informational, not Standards Track, so I think that's fine
-
Zash
dwd, hmm
-
jonas’
I’d suggest informational, it’s not a procedure of the XSF or the Council
-
Zash
or is it, if it touches on management of the website?
-
dwd
I'll got for "on-list" as far as a vote is concerned, but I'm heavily leaning toward +1.
-
daniel
+1
-
jonas’
Zash, it doesn’t seem to
-
dwd
Zash, I can see arguments for it being STandards Track, as it's trying to define an interoperable wire format for the community.
-
jonas’
depends on which wires, I suppose
-
jonas’
but true, the typical Last Call / CFE questions would apply to this one
-
jonas’
I suggest we bring that question up to the list
-
Ge0rG
I don't have a strong opinion either way
-
Ge0rG
However, with Standards Track, I'll start pondering about namespace versioning the schema.org schema
-
jonas’
(sent the ProtoXEP mail just now, forgot that yesterday, so we have a thread to go on)
-
jonas’
moving on
-
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.
-
jonas’
the first fun question is whether Link Mauve got the IPR agreement from daniel to resubmit his work under a different Track
-
Ge0rG
What happened to the "this one as Standards Track in the past" document?
-
jonas’
rejected by council
-
jonas’
because evilness
-
daniel
didnt council back then decided that moving it to a different track isn’t enough?
-
daniel
because i vaguely remember offering to do this but it was rejected
-
jonas’
2018-05-30
-
daniel
so if we now +1 we overrule previous council decisions
-
Ge0rG
so technically it was submitted as Standards Track, but never landed there?
-
jonas’
no, not 2018-05-30
-
jonas’
still finding it
-
Ge0rG
on-list, I'll wait for the XEP-0001 taskforce to decide what our legitimate options are.
-
Zash
same, on-list
-
jonas’
2018-06-06
-
daniel
can we at least fix the example before publishing it
-
daniel
on list too
-
jonas’
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-June/035135.html
-
jonas’
finally, there you go. I think the gist is historical would be ok ("although not fond of")
-
jonas’
any other votes?
-
dwd
So, Informational was rejected but Historical was not.
-
jonas’
I am +1
-
jonas’
(with any editorial fixes needed)
-
jonas’
better to have it documented than not
-
jonas’
dwd, do you want to vote?
-
dwd
I think we need to figure out what to do with the URL scheme. It feels like treading on another SDO's territory.
-
jonas’
I think the document is rather clear on that
-
Ge0rG
I don't think there are any ambitions do establish that as a generic URL scheme
-
dwd
Right, but technically it would still need registering nonetheless.
-
dwd
OK, I'm on-list.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I don't think so.
-
dwd
But I'll muse over this on-list instead of just being silent.
-
daniel
jonas’, what would be the best way to fix the examples?
-
jonas’
daniel, send me a diff?
-
jonas’
either as PR or mail or whatever works for you
-
dwd
daniel, FWIW, I'm perfectly happy to accept with broken examples and fix them.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: IMO, defining a non-standard URL scheme for the use in a specific, strictly defined context is fair game
-
jonas’
I can incorporate (rebase/am) it to the released or the protoxep version, whichever works for me
-
daniel
oh right. i can just PR the inbox
-
jonas’
We should all read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595
-
daniel
i was briefly confused.never mind
-
jonas’
I am running out of time a little today, so I’ll push forward, sorry for that
-
jonas’
4c) Cancelled, thanks theTedd
-
jonas’
5) Pending Votes
-
jonas’
a bunch of votes are pending on the MUC Mention Notifications ProtoXEP
-
jonas’
does anyone want to cast votes here?
-
jonas’
(it expires next week)
-
Ge0rG
Sorry.
-
dwd
I think I plus-oned that already.
-
jonas’
dwd, that is correct :)
-
jonas’
I assume noone wants to cast further votes here, moving on
-
jonas’
6) Date of Next
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
Zash
+1w wfm
-
daniel
+1w wfm
-
dwd
+1wwfm
-
Ge0rG
+1w wfm
-
jonas’
excellent
-
jonas’
7) AOB
-
jonas’
any?
-
dwd
daniel, did you formally give permission to resubmit that OMEMO one?
-
daniel
no
-
dwd
daniel, OK, so unless and until you do that, we can't accept it anyway.
-
daniel
how would i do that?
-
Ge0rG
dwd: isn't IPR permission explicitly required when submitting a ProtoXEP?
-
Ge0rG
so even when the ProtoXEP is rejected, the permission remains?
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Yes, but we'll have asked Link Mauve, as I understand things, rather than daniel.
-
jonas’
no, it is "upon acceptance", Ge0rG
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Ah, no. If we don't accept it, I assume that permission expires.
-
Ge0rG
Ah, thanks
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Or at least, I don't think it's safe to assume otherwise.
-
jonas’
dwd, formally, Link Mauve is liable here because they accepted the XSF IPR when reproposing ;)
-
dwd
jonas’, True.
-
jonas’
though we are now acutely aware that there is a problem
-
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.
-
dwd
daniel, To give permission, I assume just a message here or an email would be enough.
-
daniel
yes i'm fine with resubmitting it
-
dwd
daniel, Replying to the submission email would probably be most sensible. Assuming of course that you want to give permission.
-
jonas’
daniel, thank you very much :)
-
dwd
Note for Tedd: Please make sure that's minuted.
-
jonas’
any other AOB?
-
daniel
none here
-
Zash
I got nothing
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
7) Ite Meeting Est
-
daniel
Thanks jonas’. Thanks everyone
-
jonas’
gotta run, see you later
-
Zash
Thanks all
-
Link Mauve
daniel, do you accept me resubmitting your ProtoXEP under a different track?
-
daniel
i do. and that's already on the record
-
Link Mauve
Oh sorry.
-
Link Mauve
Perfect then. :)