XMPP Council - 2021-03-24

  1. Ge0rG

    Is it the day and time again?

  2. jonas’


  3. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  4. Zash


  5. daniel


  6. dwd


  7. Ge0rG ,o/

  8. jonas’


  9. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  10. jonas’

    did I miss anything?

  11. jonas’

    my MUA hasn’t caught up to anything from today yet, I just opened the laptop

  12. jonas’

    And, as introduced last week, please raise any AOB flags right during the meeting :)

  13. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  14. jonas’

    - Georg Lukas added as author to '280

  15. jonas’

    - Last Call for '280, though I didn’t get around to send the emails yet

  16. Zash

    Might be sensible to not have too long overlap with the 313 one

  17. jonas’

    fixed that

  18. jonas’

    '313 ends next week, that’s ok IMO

  19. jonas’

    also might be sensible to discuss both in parallel for some time

  20. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  21. jonas’

    I don’t know of any

  22. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  23. jonas’


  24. Ge0rG

    I vote +1

  25. jonas’

    to both?

  26. dwd

    Ge0rG, For anything in particular?

  27. Ge0rG

    I should have looked into the meeting minutes.

  28. jonas’


  29. Ge0rG

    Haven't I voted on PR#1044 last week?

  30. jonas’

    I don’t have it on record

  31. Ge0rG

    Haven't you merged it in the meantime?

  32. jonas’

    16:11:49 Ge0rG> Thanks fippo! I'll read it up ASAP.

  33. jonas’

    that’s the last I’ve gotten from you

  34. Zash

    > Anyway, I'll try to vote PR#1044 before that.

  35. Ge0rG

    jonas’: in that case +1 on PR#1044

  36. jonas’


  37. jonas’

    and the protoxep?

  38. Ge0rG

    and +1 on Content Ratings ProtoXEP

  39. jonas’


  40. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  41. jonas’

    I propose +1w - 1h

  42. jonas’

    i.e. 15:00Z next wednesday

  43. Zash

    Outch, owie, my head

  44. Ge0rG

    jonas’: because it happens to be 17:00 CEST?

  45. dwd

    +1w-1h wfm.

  46. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes

  47. jonas’

    as europe transitions to DST on march 28th

  48. daniel


  49. Ge0rG


  50. Zash

    +1, wfm

  51. jonas’


  52. jonas’

    7) AOB

  53. jonas’

    brief chance for anyone I might’ve missed to speak up

  54. Ge0rG

    Some things were brought up on xsf@ today

  55. jonas’

    I did not read any of those

  56. jonas’

    is there anything we should discuss?

  57. Ge0rG

    it was proposed to deprecate 0013 and/or to create a replacement for it in the context of MAM

  58. jonas’

    ISTR this discussion has happened before

  59. daniel

    That's probably something for next week

  60. daniel

    It literally just came up five minutes ago

  61. Ge0rG

    Well, that was discussed repeatedly over the last years, with the conclusion of finally tackling it inside of bind2 at next summit™

  62. Zash

    The post-covid summit?

  63. daniel

    I'm looking forward to the next summit

  64. Ge0rG

    Zash: it was actually a number of pre-covid next summits.

  65. Ge0rG

    earliest mention I can find is from April 2015.

  66. jonas’

    seems realistic

  67. Ge0rG

    not specifically of 0013, but of the MAM function that it "replaces" in a hacky way.

  68. Kev

    FWIW, it’s already covered inside bind 2 and has been for some time.

  69. Kev

    You can argue whether bind2 itself is right, but it does cover the ‘skip offline messages, because MAM’ thing.

  70. Ge0rG

    Kev: inside of the bind2 XEP that exists on xmpp.org or inside of somebody's head?

  71. Kev

    Inside XEP-0386

  72. Kev

    "Clear the offline messages for this user, if any, without sending them (as they will be provided by MAM)."

  73. jonas’


  74. jonas’

    we "just" need some people to implement bind2 and iron out the edges

  75. jonas’

    I think that would solve a bunch of things we really need to solve

  76. Zash

    and sasl2, and ibr2

  77. jonas’

    but as usual…

  78. jonas’


  79. dwd

    FWIW, we've been using Inbox (or something aki to it) for a while and that appears to obviate offline messaging entirely.

  80. jonas’

    XMPP 2.0 effectively

  81. jonas’

    IM 2.0 is also in that problem area

  82. jonas’

    at this point we should really consider a new RFC, shouldn’t we?

  83. Ge0rG

    jonas’: yes.

  84. daniel

    > XMPP 2.0 effectively > IM 2.0 is also in that problem area > at this point we should really consider a new RFC, shouldn’t we? Can we make it REST?

  85. Ge0rG

    unless the tribal knowledge of creating new XMPP RFCs has been lost.

  86. Kev

    I’m not sure, because you still want compatibility with everything that needs bind1 etc.

  87. jonas’

    then again, many of those changes are IM-centric and irrelevant for IoT usecases

  88. jonas’

    daniel, did you say Matrix?

  89. Sam

    Please consider discussing it next week anyways, I believe there is real harm to recommending a spec that has significant overlap with MAM just to get one tiny feature, and no real harm in deprecating it. We can discuss all this other stuff too of course, but we shouldn't put off the deprecating discussion for it or we'll never do anything every again until XMPP 2.0 is written :)

  90. Ge0rG

    jonas’: so we need a new XMPP-IM RFC

  91. jonas’

    Ge0rG, but SASL etc. is XMPP-Core

  92. jonas’

    IBR and IM-Routing are not, obviously

  93. Kev

    You can’t get rid of sasl1. Not in a sensible way in the near (decade+) future.

  94. jonas’

    Sam, in case I forget to add it to the agenda next week, could you remind me?

  95. Ge0rG

    jonas’: indeed. I'd leave sasl2 out as rather orthogonal to the others.

  96. Sam

    jonas’: will do, when would you like your reminder? (or when do you write the agenda?)

  97. Zash

    But can we get rid of XEP-0078?!

  98. jonas’

    Ge0rG, Bind is Core, too

  99. jonas’

    Sam, tuesday

  100. Ge0rG

    bind2 + MAM + Carbons2 sounds like a good IM package though

  101. Sam

    Adding a reminder to send you a reminder :)

  102. jonas’


  103. jonas’


  104. jonas’

    Ge0rG, + IM0NG

  105. jonas’

    Ge0rG, + IM-NG

  106. jonas’

    well, that’s carbons2

  107. Ge0rG

    jonas’: right, that too

  108. Ge0rG

    MAM subscription would be a good replacement for carbons and somewhat also to 0198

  109. jonas’

    either way

  110. jonas’

    nothing we can solve in this session, can we?

  111. Ge0rG


  112. Sam

    It might also be interesting to discuss whether this particular thing (or other stuff bind2 does) belong in bind2 or if eg. MAM should say "if using bind2 and MAM, also do this"

  113. jonas’

    MAM should say nothing about bind2, because we want MAM to go to draft before bind2

  114. jonas’

    not principally, but because bind2 is not going to move to draft any time soon and MAM really should

  115. Sam

    sorry, just realized meeting isn't officially over. Peanut gallery shutting up.

  116. Ge0rG

    Sam: IMO, bind2 doesn't go far enough in MAM integration, I'd rather have the client (optionally) indicate its last known MAM message ID and receive a MAM push of everything that's missing since.

  117. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  118. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est please move remaining discussions about the XMPP 2.0 topic field -> xsf@

  119. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  120. Sam

    jonas’: yah, in this particular case that's definitely true