XMPP Council - 2021-05-26

  1. jonas’

    ’tis time (nearly)

  2. Ge0rG


  3. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  4. jonas’ is there

  5. Ge0rG is frightened

  6. Zash here

  7. daniel


  8. jonas’

    dwd maybe?

  9. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  10. jonas’

    I forgot a point, we have to vote on a new protoxep

  11. jonas’

    I’ll inject that then

  12. jonas’

    any other amendments?

  13. jonas’

    taking it as a no

  14. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update * CVE number things in XEPs * Compliance Suites 2020 ProtoXEP published

  15. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  16. dwd

    Sorry, caught up in an offboarding meeting.

  17. jonas’

    4a) XEP-0292: Recommend using contact bare JIDs as item IDs URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/848 This has been idling for a looong time now, and pinging stpeter did not help. Let us do something about it.

  18. jonas’

    dwd, still caught up or will you attend here?

  19. jonas’

    just so that I know whether to block on you :)

  20. Kev

    Can I interject and ask what ‘pinging’ means here? I get the impression that sometimes people have just mentioned me in a MUC or @me on a PR and expect me to notice it.

  21. Kev

    (Which I frequently won’t)

  22. jonas’

    Kev, I don’t know whether any explicit email pings have been made in this case

  23. Kev

    So if that was all that was done to ask Peter for input, it’s conceivable it wouldn’t be effective on him either :)

  24. jonas’

    it’s been a while

  25. Sam


  26. jonas’

    I’m all in for pinging via email (possibly again) if that makes sense, but if the default is that authors do not listen in for pings on github PRs, we need to find a better process.

  27. Ge0rG

    It's been almost a decade. I think we should make another attempt to contact stpeter and by then it will be October, a ten-years-anniversary of the suggestion.

  28. Kev

    Pinging on github has never been our process has it?

  29. Kev

    Our process has always been explicitly that no important discussion only happens via github.

  30. Kev

    (Other than submitting XEP updates - but any discussion on them happens onlist)

  31. jonas’

    Kev, that’s true, but I lack the energy currently to bring everything to the list

  32. jonas’

    as you might’ve noticed with that PR of yours :)

  33. jonas’

    either way, I guess I’ll just ping stpeter

  34. jonas’

    via email this time

  35. jonas’

    4b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Compliance Suites 2022 URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cs-2022.html

  36. jonas’

    +1, let’s get this under the roof for proper discussion and further development

  37. Zash


  38. daniel


  39. Ge0rG


  40. jonas’

    Thanks. I assume that we have lost dwd to the offboarding again, so moving on.

  41. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  42. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  43. daniel

    +1w wfm

  44. Zash

    +1w wfm

  45. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  46. jonas’


  47. jonas’

    6) AOB

  48. jonas’

    anyone got anything?

  49. Zash

    Are there any old XEPs we could YOLO-LC or deprecate or something?

  50. Zash

    Or have we completed the list we had?

  51. daniel


  52. Ge0rG

    I think there was something about 0280

  53. Ge0rG

    but -EBUSY

  54. jonas’

    the shortlist is cleared out excetp for '390 and '313

  55. Sam

    oooh, I have a list somewhere

  56. Sam goes to look

  57. jonas’

    daniel, what’s with XEP-0021?

  58. jonas’

    daniel, what’s with XEP-0012?

  59. Ge0rG


  60. daniel

    Zash wanted to randomly deprecated xeps

  61. Zash

    sorta replaced by https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0256.html ?

  62. Zash

    or the <idle> one

  63. daniel

    No let's not randomly deprecate xeps today

  64. Sam

    Killjoy :)

  65. jonas’

    I guess we could make another call of "things which need to be advanced" to the list.

  66. Zash

    Sounds good

  67. jonas’

    it brought a bit of activity for sure

  68. Sam

    I nominate XEP-0054 and 0055 for the ax!

  69. Sam shuts up and lets you get on with the meeting

  70. jonas’

    gonna write that email then

  71. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  72. jonas’

    taking that as a no

  73. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  74. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  75. Ge0rG

    thanks jonas’

  76. Zash

    Thanks jonas’

  77. Zash

    Thanks all

  78. Sam

    Speaking of compliance suites, these are still draft (but so are 2021): https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html

  79. Zash

    Shall we have another go at how compliance suites are weird and deserve their own xep-1 flow? 🙂

  80. Sam

    I tend to agree, but I'm not willing to wade into the impossible task of making more work for ourselves when we could just agree to actually put them out on time even if they're not perfect and tell the editor they can deprecate the old ones when the new ones come along

  81. Ge0rG

    So let's deprecate 2020 and move 2021 to final?

  82. Sam

    Please and thank you

  83. Sam

    Here was the list I mentioned, FYI. Some of them probably need replacements, some need deprecation, some need to be obsoleted, etc. the list is just "I feel like something needs to be done with these": https://bin.disroot.org/?83e148f7d618ae4f#G9aWQqLYnBLgAoQw6dgci39SEnFhnoT9ExWsNexCH6ib

  84. Sam

    Some of them are probably doing no harm if we just leave them alone, it just makes me nervous that they're still there and not being looked at by anyone.

  85. Zash

    153 is *gaining* popularity because it's the only way to do it in MUC 🙁

  86. Sam

    Yah, 153 I want to kill just because we'll never make a better way as long as it exists and I hate working with vcards.

  87. Zash

    And all attempts at something sane for MUC was rejeced by previous councils

  88. Zash

    At least vcard4+xep84 is picking up now

  89. Sam

    I seem to have left off 0229, I guess I should go back through the extensions list.

  90. Zash

    Some new safer compression method might be nice to have

  91. Zash

    zstd with a fixed dictionary or something

  92. Sam

    Yah, I could see that being obsoleted because we've been going back and forth over the security issues since I've been here at least, or actually updated with something newer

  93. daniel

    > Some new safer compression method might be nice to have > zstd with a fixed dictionary or something Zash: and compress each stanza individually?

  94. Zash

    Unless I got it all wrong, by "fixed dictionary" I mean the mode where there are no backreferences, only references to a pre-defined dictionary of common strings

  95. Kev

    Backreferences are fine as long as they don’t cross trust boundaries, aren’t they?

  96. Zash

    One of the problems is, how do you enforce that?

  97. daniel

    Zash: I think zstd does both?

  98. Zash

    supports both, yes.

  99. daniel

    Unless it can explicitly disabled?