XMPP Council - 2021-06-23

  1. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  2. jonas’

    do we get a dwd?

  3. jonas’

    or a Ge0rG?

  4. jonas’

    or a daniel?

  5. jonas’

    or a Zash?

  6. daniel

    I'm here

  7. jonas’

    noone else?

  8. Zash


  9. jonas’


  10. jonas’

    that's quorum

  11. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  12. jonas’

    please just mention things during the meeting

  13. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update * Compliance Suites 2022 accepted as XEP-0459

  14. Zash


  15. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  16. jonas’

    I do not think there is anything

  17. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes - Georg, Dave and Kim on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1064 - Dave on Deprecate and Obsolote Compliance Suites 2020

  18. jonas’

    Zash, wanna cast?

  19. Zash

    Not at this time.

  20. jonas’


  21. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  22. Zash

    A wild dwd appears

  23. jonas’


  24. dwd

    Argh. Sorry.

  25. jonas’

    does the wild dwd want to cast votes?

  26. daniel

    +1 w wfm

  27. Zash

    +1w wfm

  28. jonas’

    (I saw your vote on list)

  29. dwd

    Yeah. On list for the PR, which I note MattJ has updated now.

  30. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  31. dwd

    And for Compliance Suites 2020, decprecate and obsolete it.

  32. Zash

    Uh, updating during the vote period..

  33. jonas’

    yes I guess we technically need to revote, do we not?

  34. dwd

    Thought I appreciate the different spelling of "Obsolete" every time.

  35. jonas’


  36. jonas’

    (fwiw, i am on mobilen, it is surprisingly tricky and workable at the same time, but I am also slower)

  37. dwd

    I would like it if that PR were discussed on list, I imagine that the other server developers might have an opinion, if only to agree.

  38. jonas’

    it was posted to the list, but nobody cared

  39. jonas’

    so I am not sure what can be improved there

  40. jonas’

    +1w it is

  41. jonas’

    5) Pending votes -- PR#1064 discussion

  42. jonas’

    so, what do we do? I guess dwd will veto the old version because of his comments so we have to re-vote on the new version

  43. jonas’

    question is if we first re-encourage list discussion?

  44. dwd

    Well if it has been posted to the list (sorry Matt) then there's little more we can do, but it makes me wonder if people care either way.

  45. jonas’


  46. jonas’

    it has

  47. dwd

    I suspect the PR is fine now, I just don't know if discouraging the plaintext password field is going to annoy other server developers or if they don't care, or if they'd welcome the changes.

  48. Zash

    I said something in xsf@, tho minor

  49. jonas’

    well I am sure that prosody will get an implementation and if nobody else cares, having MattJ take care of that seems sensible

  50. daniel

    the PR doesn’t sound very controversial

  51. dwd

    Yes, but what happens with ejabberd's implementation, for example?

  52. jonas’

    namespace bump?

  53. dwd

    Would that makes things worse?

  54. daniel

    new xep? :-)

  55. dwd

    Even worse? :-)

  56. jonas’


  57. dwd

    I dunno.

  58. Zash

    Hasn't the namespace changed a bunch of times already?

  59. jonas’

    I think namespace bump is exactly the tool for that

  60. dwd

    I'm not against the PR, incidentally. i just have no feel for what the community feels as a whole.

  61. jonas’

    we cannot force folks to give feedback though

  62. jonas’

    we could poke some known server devs for sure

  63. daniel

    the general vibe i'm getting (not from the PR but from talks I had before that PR came to be) that those changes are welcome and long overdue

  64. dwd

    We can't force feedback, but it'd be nice to get some support for changing a Draft XEP.

  65. jonas’

    daniel: vibe from whom?

  66. daniel

    on conversations.im for example we have talked about offering import/export to users (especially but not limited to our domain users)

  67. daniel

    but that has always been held back by 277 not being 'modern' enough

  68. daniel

    and that PR fixes exactly the problems we had with 227

  69. jonas’

    I prefer an unopposed and unsupported change on a Draft XEP over yet another experimental rewrite XEP

  70. jonas’

    daniel: those words would have been great on the list

  71. dwd

    jonas’, Yes, we don't want a rewrite.

  72. dwd

    But words of support from the ejabberd folks, and/or Openfire, would be great.

  73. jonas’

    thats true

  74. jonas’

    maybe we can poke Holger or so

  75. jonas’

    we need to re-vote anyway

  76. jonas’

    so I suggest we do that and poke folks on list in parallel?

  77. dwd

    I have poked Guus, for Openfire.

  78. jonas’

    or do we want to poke first and vote thereafter, ignoring that there was lots of time already?

  79. dwd

    We can [re]vote next week regardless.

  80. jonas’


  81. jonas’

    let us do that then

  82. jonas’

    I think we can move on then

  83. jonas’

    (I poked Holger)

  84. jonas’

    7) AOB

  85. jonas’

    has anyone got any?

  86. Sam

    I poked editor for a LC on vcard4. Just a heads up.

  87. jonas’

    Sam: thx

  88. jonas’

    (also for the reminder)

  89. jonas’

    alright then

  90. Sam

    Also I request that council obsolete SOAP over XMPP at their earliest convenience.

  91. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  92. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  93. dwd

    Sam, I'm not sure we should, it's still quite important with COVID.

  94. Sam

    dwd: I'm unsure if that was a joke or if all these aweful contact tracing sites are actually using SOAP :)

  95. daniel

    i was trying to look up a suitable badum tss gif

  96. Zash

    Thanks jonas’

  97. jonas’

    afk now

  98. dwd

    It was a joke until you put that thought in my head...

  99. Sam

    It wouldn't suprise me either way :)

  100. Sam

    As someone else said when this came up recently, I'm very disapointed in that joke, go wash your mouth out with… some old protocol.

  101. Sam

    Anyways, jokes aside, please discuss at your earliest convenience. I would like it to not be on the list of XEPs if possible.

  102. dwd


  103. dwd

    It might actually be useful to have a state other than Deprecated or Obsolete for things like SOAP/XMPP. I mean, ifsomeone actually wanted to do SOAP over XMPP, it's a perfectly good way of doing it, but I agree we don't want it cluttering the list.

  104. Sam

    Maybe we need a new category for "technically this is still a fine way to do this, but don't do this"

  105. Sam

    oops, yes, that

  106. dwd

    Great minds think alike, whilst fools seldom differ, etc.

  107. Sam

    We could move it to Historical and turn that off by default (if it's on, I forget)

  108. Sam

    oh wait, that's a category not a state, or something

  109. dwd

    Historical unfortunate is a track and carries a bunch of other semantics.

  110. Sam

    I guess some of the historical ones like private XML are actually common and should be on the list too, so nevermind

  111. dwd

    Yes. "Historical" means "GRandfathered into our standards process from The Great Before"

  112. dwd

    WHat we want is an "Archived" status, or something.

  113. Sam

    Maybe just deprecated is fine. No longer in wide use because there are more modern protocols. They don't directly supersede SOAP over XMPP, but as SOAP is more or less superseded it seems like it more or less matches.

  114. Sam

    "New implementations not encouraged" being the important part

  115. Sam

    Although having an archive status also sounds good

  116. Holger

    As for 0227, ejabberd relies on its internal stanza ID format, so supporting MAM import would require adding another column. But I see no way around this.

  117. dwd

    Holger, On the list, please!

  118. Holger

    Also, not sure anything should be added to 0227 in order to support MIX roster entries? But maybe not. (Or maybe just a sentence mentioning the issue of MIX and/or generally unsupported childs ...)

  119. Holger

    Yeah, well, I had seen the posting, figured I have no noteworthy feedback, and now got poked to give it nevertheless :-)

  120. Zash

    dwd, Sam: Maybe it would be better to put more focus on the compliance suites, rather than getting rid of XEPs with obscure but valid use cases?

  121. dwd

    That is, also, a reasonable idea.

  122. Sam

    I do agree we need a better process / more focus on the compliance suites, but I still think having old things like this in the list just looks bad

  123. jonas’

    I agree with Zash on that

  124. Sam

    Although I don't know how we'd add "Archive" at this point. Replace 0001? Can a new XEP modify the procedure w/o being the whole thing again?

  125. jonas’

    we can update 1 without replacing

  126. Sam

    If I'm considering proposing those changes to 0001 anyways, would it make sense to also let you go straight from Final to Obsolete without the awkward "vote to deprecate first"? It makes the graphs easier to draw and it's not as if we don't already do that anyways

  127. Sam

    That's not true, the graphs are hard to draw either way (or I'm just bad at this). Maybe this isn't a good idea because this state machine is already too complicated.

  128. jonas’

    I don't see a problem with the deprecate+obsolete vote, we can do it in one batch

  129. Sam

    Okay, quick PR submitted anyways to help start discussion.

  130. stpeter

    Thanks, Sam!

  131. Sam

    I suppose one could argue that this could also just be a website change and doesn't require an XEP change

  132. Sam

    Ie. there's an archive section you can filter on but its full of final and historical XEPs or whatever state they were in

  133. Sam

    Just "stuff we don't think is really useful anymore"

  134. Kev

    You can set such a filter already, I think - but calling it out in a helpful way (possibly a preset) seems useful.

  135. stpeter

    Having read the scrollback, I do wonder if Deprecated or Obsolete is actually what we want for something like SOAP over XMPP. One hopes that SOAP is obsolete at this point. I'm not sure we need a new Archived state (IMHO developers might not be clear on the difference between Archived and the states we have now).

  136. stpeter

    But I can reply on the standards@ list if there's a thread (I don't see one at the moment).

  137. Kev

    > But words of support from the ejabberd folks, and/or Openfire, would be great I’m sure there are other servers too...

  138. stpeter


  139. Sam

    I tend to think Obsolete or Deprecate is fine too, but as long as *something* happens to it (and probably others, it just seemed like an uncontrovoersial one to start) I'm happy.

  140. Sam

    I agree that Archived might just be confusing.

  141. stpeter

    Now, we do have this thing about moving from Final to Deprecated to Obsolete and perhaps folks don't like the two-step process, but that's how things are defined and it gives developers plenty of warning.

  142. jonas’

    yay, back on a real keyboard

  143. jonas’

    Sam, so my take on SOAP over XMPP is that even if SOAP is deprecated or whatever, that’s no reason to deprecate that on our side. It is still a valid (albeit probably niche) use case and you can still do it and it doesn’t cause harm to have it specified. Obsoleting or Deprecating it makes no sense to me.

  144. jonas’

    Kev, are there other servers which (whose users) are interested in migrating individual users between services? If so, there is a thread on list which went completely silent from those servers ;)

  145. Kev

    Not individual users, no, but we do support 227 both in and out.

  146. Sam

    The harm is political, not technical. Everyone thinks XMPP is some dead outdated technology and having "SOAP over XMPP" on the main page you go to when you're trying to figure out what XMPP things to do doesn't help.

  147. Sam

    But I agree there's no harm in leaving it specified if we could hide it away in the "not actually useful anymore" page somehow.

  148. Kev

    Although we don’t do the user password bit any more.

  149. jonas’

    Sam, if new users go to the full list of XEPs to figure out what to do, that’s really wrong and *that* is what we need to fix

  150. jonas’

    Kev, on-list feedback is then surely appreciated

  151. jonas’

    (even if it is just "lets do that")

  152. Sam

    I agree with that too but to a certain extent that's always what people are going to do so we might as well fix both problems.

  153. Kev

    I think obsoleting SOAP over XMPP is fine, personally. SOAP is obsolete.

  154. Kev

    May as well just clean up the list.

  155. stpeter

    +1 to Kev