XMPP Council - 2021-06-16

  1. Sam

    Hi council, the 2020 Compliance Suites are still showing up as a draft standard. Please vote to fix. Thanks: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html

  2. Zash

    This feels like a thing that should be automatic, but a quick scan of XEP-0001 says that's on advance to Final

  3. Zash

    > A Standards Track XEP is in the Final state after it has been in the Draft state for at least six (6) months, [...] That part feels a bit stressful with annual compliance suites...

  4. Sam

    I'm sure we discussed this, but shouldn't they just be informational?

  5. Sam

    No new protocol and they seem to define "best practices for implementation or deployment of an existing protocol"

  6. Zash

    It's been discussed. Changing it is up to Board since it's defined by XEP-0001.

  7. jonas’

    and nobody cared to bring it to board

  8. jonas’

    and nobody cared enough to bring it to board

  9. jonas’

    XEP-0001 explicitly states that compliance suites are Standards Track

  10. jonas’

    so that’d need changing

  11. Sam

    I mean, nobody has to bring it up separately right? Just change next years to experimental and vote as normal?

  12. Ge0rG

    sounds like a PR for Board

  13. Sam

    oh, does it? Nevermind then

  14. Zash

    What we could do is try to hold a fixed schedule for compliance suites?

  15. Sam

    yah, maybe I'll propose some language. I suppose they could be standards track and just skip a few steps too

  16. Ge0rG

    I wouldn't mind them being Informational, but I'm not the author any more!

  17. Ge0rG

    Sam: explicitly writing down that they shall be informational is a Good Thing, isn't it?

  18. Sam

    Zash: I already tried that, without language forcing the matter nobody could agree in a timely manner.

  19. Sam

    Ge0rG: I don't see why it would matter, we might decide it was a mistake and want to switch later so I'd say let it be either

  20. Ge0rG

    Zash: I also tried that, but calculating the required run-off times to publish a new Draft CS for Christmas was *hard*

  21. Sam

    The only reason it would be nice if they were informational is to skip "Draft" which is only nice because "Draft" is a confusing word

  22. Ge0rG

    Sam: if we decide it was an error we can revert the change. Please don't make our protocols more vague

  23. Sam

    So maybe the answer is "propose changes to standards track process" and "propose automatic advancement/deferral of compliance suites"

  24. Sam

    It's not vague, it's at the authors discretion just like every other XEP

  25. Sam

    (or would be)

  26. Zash

    Could start with poking whomever needs poking to advance CS-2021 to Final?

  27. Sam

    I mean, I have no preference either way, informational just seems semantically correct but that's not worth making changes over at all as far as I'm concerned unless we're just happening to be messing with the process anyways

  28. Zash

    That should automatically obsolete CS-2020

  29. Sam

    "XEP may be approved provisionally and be assigned an expiration date", huh, I didn't remember that this was a thing

  30. Sam

    So we can already be doing this I guess

  31. Ge0rG

    but Editor process!

  32. Sam

    Editor process? Isn't "do what council says" the editor process?

  33. Sam

    I had a tool somewhere that checked for XEPs that were out of date (experimental that needed to be deferred and what not) and more CI oriented things like missing revision blocks and what not. I should revive that and add compliance suites as a special case

  34. Ge0rG


  35. Zash

    Moar automation!

  36. Ge0rG

    `if title.startsWith("Compliance Suite ") ...`

  37. jonas’


  38. Sam

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ seems fine for a simple tool meant to be run on CI

  39. Sam

    (as long as time-based rules and problems that don't change are two steps so that the time-based or title-based ones that may have false positives aren't blocking CI)

  40. Ge0rG

    It looks like it's almost time!

  41. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  42. jonas’

    I was already anxiously hovering over the enter key

  43. jonas’

    and I think I need to check my clocks

  44. Zash


  45. daniel


  46. Ge0rG

  47. jonas’

    they both claim to be on ntp tho, so whatever

  48. jonas’

    do we have a dwd today?

  49. jonas’

    let’s see :)

  50. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  51. jonas’

    I hear that we need to do something about the CS-2020, but I’m not sure what we can do

  52. Sam

    obsolete them.

  53. Ge0rG

    burn it with fire

  54. jonas’

    we can CFE it, but realistically, nothing is going to happen there and it’s just noise in everyones inboxes

  55. Sam

    The 2021 ones have been draft for ages, why are there two?

  56. jonas’

    ehh right, it’s 2021 already

  57. jonas’

    ^ that might be why

  58. jonas’

    so I’ll add a vote to obsolete the CS-2020

  59. dwd

    Hiya, sorry, meeting overrunning.

  60. dwd

    I'll be sort-of paying some attention until it's done.

  61. jonas’

    and we can think about what to do with the 2021 one because a CFE feels pointless and tiresome

  62. jonas’

    dwd, good luck :)

  63. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  64. jonas’

    * Proposed XMPP Extension: Pre-auth Registration Key Generation and Validation

  65. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  66. jonas’

    4a) PR#1064: XEP-0227: New revision 1.1 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1064 Abstract: - Discourage inclusion of plaintext passwords - Document a format for including SCRAM data - Define data formats for PEP and MAM data

  67. jonas’


  68. daniel


  69. Ge0rG


  70. Zash


  71. jonas’

    assuming dwd is going to be on-list because only sort-of paying some attention right now

  72. jonas’

    4b) Deprecate and Obsolete XEP-0423: XMPP Compliance Suites 2020 URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html

  73. jonas’


  74. Zash


  75. daniel


  76. daniel

    Wait deprecate *and* obsolete?

  77. jonas’


  78. daniel

    Isn't it either or?

  79. jonas’


  80. daniel


  81. jonas’

    we need to first deprecate before we can obsolete according to the graph in '1

  82. daniel

    Ah OK that makes sense

  83. jonas’

    (I looked it up just before typing the 4b ;))

  84. jonas’

    Ge0rG, ?

  85. Ge0rG


  86. Ge0rG


  87. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  88. jonas’

    the agenda mail was a lie, daniel is pending on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1066

  89. daniel


  90. jonas’


  91. jonas’


  92. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  93. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  94. Zash

    +1w wfm

  95. daniel

    I might not make it. But not worth rescheduling I guess

  96. jonas’

    I guess we’ll gamble on quorum then :)

  97. Ge0rG

    I think I'll make it

  98. jonas’

    7) AOB

  99. jonas’

    7a) Code of Conduct Experimental Procedural XEP

  100. jonas’

    you may have noticed that there is that CoC XEP

  101. Zash

    May have, indeed.

  102. jonas’

    Just wanna point it out in case you managed to miss it. Since the document calls members of board and council out specifically, it’s probably worth reading and discussing.

  103. jonas’

    and also a note that it is only Experimental, not Active yet, as some seem to think.

  104. jonas’

    anyway, we don’t need to discuss here, on-list (members@ or standards@) is the better place

  105. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  106. jonas’

    taking the silence and absence of typing chat states as a no

  107. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  108. jonas’ bangs the gavel

  109. jonas’

    thanks everyone, thanks tedd :)

  110. Zash

    Does Dino even send typing notifications here?

  111. daniel

    Thanks Zash

  112. Ge0rG

    thanks jonas’

  113. Zash

    Thanks Ge0rG

  114. Ge0rG

    Thanks Zash