XMPP Council - 2021-03-03

  1. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  2. daniel


  3. Zash


  4. Ge0rG

  5. jonas’


  6. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  7. dwd

    Here too!

  8. jonas’


  9. Ge0rG

    let's see if we can manage to fit everything into half an hour.

  10. dwd

    Sorry I'm late, it totally wasn't because I was in a secret room having a secret conversation with a cabal.

  11. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  12. jonas’


  13. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  14. jonas’

    4a) Update mix namespace for XEP-0406 and XEP-0408 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1041 This is against experimental XEPs, but the editor would like guidance on whether this would require a namespace bump in the respective documents.

  15. jonas’

    do we want to or have to form an opinion on that?

  16. jonas’

    ISTM that it changes the elements allowed/expected in the affected PubSub nodes and I wonder if that needs a bump.

  17. dwd

    I don't think it does, this looks like an errata correction to me.

  18. jonas’

    in that case I’d still wonder how to deal with NS-bumping '369 in the future then; would that ripple through the entire stack of XEPs?

  19. Ge0rG

    jonas’: it would need a bump where exactly?

  20. jonas’

    Ge0rG, the @node would need a change I suppose?

  21. Zash

    How's this been handled with eg Jingle?

  22. jonas’

    ohh no wait

  23. Ge0rG

    jonas’: so it would be urn:xmpp:mix:nodes:config:1 then?

  24. daniel

    i think the particular PR is fine

  25. Ge0rG

    Matrix room versions PITA style?

  26. jonas’

    this is very confusion

  27. daniel

    i'm not sure if this can be said about all general cases

  28. jonas’

    daniel, I think both is true

  29. jonas’

    (i.e. this one is ok, others may not)

  30. Ge0rG

    There is also urn:xmpp:mix:admin:0 which is already namespaced.

  31. jonas’

    I’d also note that I don’t think we’re doing ourselves a favour with that namespace versioning on a spec level anyway

  32. daniel

    plus it's experimental stil so we can do what ever, no?

  33. jonas’

    daniel, yep

  34. daniel

    or authors can do what ever

  35. daniel

    not we

  36. jonas’

    The editor was just wondering

  37. Ge0rG

    Does it make sense to bump all MIX elements in lockstep, or will each element evolutionize on its own?

  38. jonas’

    Ge0rG, that’s the question in the end

  39. jonas’

    I think we’ll have to make judgement calls about that in the future

  40. Ge0rG

    I think I'll just continue pretending that MIX doesn't exist.

  41. daniel

    realistically we won’t be able to bump mix once it's implemented/used/draft

  42. jonas’

    just like MUC

  43. jonas’


  44. daniel


  45. Ge0rG

    MUC doesn't even have a number to bump

  46. jonas’

    what even are version numbers

  47. Ge0rG

    daniel: does that mean we should remove the fig-leaf number from MIX?

  48. jonas’

    Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s ok

  49. jonas’

    Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s good to have

  50. daniel

    Ge0rG, i'm not the author. but i think i agree with jonas’

  51. Ge0rG


  52. jonas’


  53. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  54. jonas’

    There are none.

  55. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  56. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  57. Zash

    +1w wfm2

  58. Ge0rG

    +1w wfm

  59. daniel


  60. dwd

    +1 wfm

  61. jonas’


  62. jonas’

    7) AOB

  63. jonas’

    does anyone have anything?

  64. dwd

    None from me

  65. Zash

    None here

  66. jonas’

    taking the absence of chat state notifications as a no

  67. jonas’


  68. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  69. jonas’

    Thanks everyone, thanks Tedd.

  70. Zash

    Thanks Tedd, thanks jonas’, thanks all.

  71. mathieui

    from the late gallery: the MIX namespace bump proposal in related specs is mostly to avoid confusing implementors as MIX interest has seen an uptick lately

  72. jonas’

    mathieui, yep, understood it as that

  73. jonas’

    I was just wondering how it should happen in non-experimental there :)

  74. mathieui

    yes, makes sense