XMPP Council - 2021-03-10

  1. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  2. daniel


  3. Zash


  4. dwd


  5. jonas’

    Ge0rG ping

  6. Ge0rG ,o/

  7. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  8. jonas’

    any amendments?

  9. Zash

    None here.

  10. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  11. jonas’

    well, "nothing" as written in the agenda is wrong, in fact we did have a protoxep ;)

  12. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  13. Sam

    Agenda bashing: please consider moving carbons to draft again soon; thanks :)

  14. jonas’

    4a) PR#1044: xep-0294: add mapping for a=extmap-allow-mixed URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1044 Updates the reference of RFC 5285 -> RFC 8285 and includes support for that new attribute.

  15. jonas’

    Sam, same as for MAM… ping the author to make them ask the editor please

  16. Sam

    Oh right *facepalm*, will do.

  17. jonas’

    Sam, but thanks for the reminder, I’ll ask Matt about whether MAM is now ready for LC

  18. dwd

    Easier with Carbons, half the XSF must be an author by now. :-)

  19. Sam

    jonas’: Matt already requested LC on MAM IIRC

  20. daniel

    do we have a general rule or best practices for adding new elements in the same namespace?

  21. Sam

    But sorry, peanut gallery shutting up and not being distracting now.

  22. jonas’

    Sam, thanks :)

  23. dwd

    Anyway. This PR.

  24. daniel

    we did something similiar with rtcmux not too long ago

  25. jonas’

    daniel, I think the consensus normally is "don’t"

  26. dwd

    daniel, If it's an optional element, then it's technically breaking XML namespacing rules, but pragmatically it seems absolutely fine.

  27. daniel

    but the situation was slightly different because 'most' implementations already do this anyway (and there arent that many)

  28. Zash

    nit: Does this qualify for a "should be discussed on standards@ first" ?

  29. dwd

    Zash, That was something I was going to raise, indeed.

  30. jonas’


  31. daniel

    fwiw I think this PR is probably fine and I don’t see this breaking anything in practice

  32. daniel

    but the 'proper' solution would be to put this in a new namespace

  33. daniel

    which would be extremly wasteful

  34. jonas’

    I already forgot about our new rule and going by that, this PR obviously isn’t even on our agenda ;)

  35. dwd

    daniel, I think that's the pedantic solution, rather than the proper one.

  36. Zash

    The general principle of "ignore what you don't understand" should make this fine without a ns bump.

  37. dwd

    daniel, We change namespaces to prevent interop failures, which this shouldn't cause if I'm understanding things correctly - that is, it's safe to leave off this element and it's safe to ignore it.

  38. daniel

    +1 on the PR

  39. Zash

    It irks me that there's discussion on github instead of standards@, but the comments on the PR makes me think this is fine. And I trust fippo on these things. So +1 if we're voting. 🙂

  40. Ge0rG

    But are we voting or escalating to standards?

  41. jonas’

    yes, that’s a question we need to answer for ourselves

  42. Zash


  43. jonas’

    I think raising to the list would be good

  44. jonas’

    especially with jingle

  45. dwd

    I'll on-list for essentially the reasons Zash gives - it irks that it's not discussed on list, and while I'm pretty sure it's fine based on Fippo and Jonathan Lennox's discussion, I'd like it run past people on list first.

  46. jonas’

    I think what dwd proposes is a good middle-ground

  47. jonas’

    ok, any other votes in this meeting?

  48. jonas’

    ok, any other votes on that in this meeting?

  49. Ge0rG

    I'll on-list in the hope that somebody brings it to the list before the vote expires

  50. jonas’

    Ge0rG, Tedd will :)

  51. jonas’

    (I hope)

  52. jonas’

    moving on

  53. jonas’

    4b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Content Rating Labels URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/content-ratings.html Abstract: This specification provides a wire format in the form of a Service Discovery extension to allow services of various kinds to publish information about the kind of content they allow and/or endorse on their platform.

  54. daniel


  55. jonas’

    I am +1

  56. Ge0rG

    on-list (very much sorry)

  57. Zash

    +1 I noticed some issues that I'm sure the author will fix in Experimental.

  58. jonas’

    Zash, care to share those?

  59. Zash

    > If the format needs to be conveyed in plain text form, [...], the following algorithm is to be applied: and then the section ends

  60. jonas’


  61. jonas’

    that’s … a good find

  62. dwd

    Yes, I noticed that algorithm seemed overly simplistic, and arguably misses some key cases.

  63. jonas’

    dwd, feedback welcome

  64. dwd

    But anyway: Yes, seems worth working on, and therefore +1

  65. jonas’

    please go ahead and post it on-list. I won’t be able to work on this further right away because I need to migrate some stuff to other servers (unrelated to the OVH incident), but it’s high on my prio list after that

  66. jonas’

    ok, we’ve got all votes then

  67. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes None except those from today.

  68. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  69. Zash

    +1w wfm

  70. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  71. dwd

    +1w wfm

  72. daniel

    +1w wfm

  73. Ge0rG

    I'll be in a video conf next week

  74. Ge0rG

    no idea how much attention it will require yet

  75. jonas’


  76. jonas’

    7) AOB

  77. dwd

    None from me.

  78. jonas’

    ok, taking the remaining silence as a no

  79. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  80. jonas’

    Thanks Tedd for the minutes for last time, thanks everyone \o/

  81. Zash

    Thanks jonas’, thanks Tedd, thanks all.

  82. Ge0rG

    thanks jonas’