XMPP Council - 2021-03-10

1) Roll Call

here

Here

Here.

Ge0rG ping

2) Agenda Bashing

any amendments?

None here.

3) Editor’s Update

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

4) Items for Voting

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

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.

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

Oh right *facepalm*, will do.

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

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

jonas’: Matt already requested LC on MAM IIRC

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

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

Sam, thanks :)

Anyway. This PR.

we did something similiar with rtcmux not too long ago

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

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

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

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

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

riiight

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

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

which would be extremly wasteful

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

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

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

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.

+1 on the PR

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. 🙂

But are we voting or escalating to standards?

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

Yes

I think raising to the list would be good

especially with jingle

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.

I think what dwd proposes is a good middle-ground

ok, any other votes on that in this meeting? ✏

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

Ge0rG, Tedd will :)

(I hope)

moving on

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.

+1

I am +1

on-list (very much sorry)

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

Zash, care to share those?

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

:D

that’s … a good find

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

dwd, feedback welcome

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

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

ok, we’ve got all votes then

5) Pending Votes None except those from today.

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

I'll be in a video conf next week

no idea how much attention it will require yet

ok

7) AOB

None from me.

ok, taking the remaining silence as a no

8) Ite Meeting Est

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

Thanks jonas’, thanks Tedd, thanks all.

thanks jonas’