XMPP Council - 2021-08-18


  1. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  2. Zash

    Ohai

  3. daniel

    Hi

  4. jonas’

    doorbell

  5. jonas’

    re

  6. jonas’

    no Ge0rG, no dwd?

  7. jonas’

    ah well, let's get started anyway

  8. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  9. jonas’

    mention anything you dislike or would like to discuss at any time

  10. jonas’

    3) Editor's update

  11. jonas’

    Nothing out of the ordinary.

  12. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  13. jonas’

    4a) PR#1096: XEP-0060: remove exception for last item when purging a node URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1096 List-Discussion: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2021-July/038465.html

  14. jonas’

    there was not much feedback on-list

  15. Zash

    So, was this because it was non-controversial or ...

  16. jonas’

    but goffi said they had discussed this in xsf@, too, does anyone know when that happened?

  17. Ge0rG

    good morning!

  18. Ge0rG

    this looks like a normative change of the XEP, and I'd like to see feedback from server authors regarding whether it would affect existing code or not

  19. jonas’

    https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2021-07-20#2021-07-20-8cc43b5511594941

  20. Zash

    I remember the discussion but not the exact time

  21. Zash

    No change in Prosody AFAIK

  22. Zash

    I approve, so +1, unless someone convinces me that it's too disruptive or somesuch.

  23. jonas’

    to me, the behaviour of not deleting all items is really contrary to the notion of "purge"

  24. jonas’

    so I am also in favour of this change in general.

  25. jonas’

    and I think that client implementations which need to be extra sure can just check afterward whether there's still an item left and delete that separately

  26. jonas’

    ... which means that we need a note in the document which points at that

  27. jonas’

    it'd be really nice to have a dwd here right now :)

  28. jonas’

    ... but it seems that's not happening

  29. jonas’

    Ge0rG, any vote?

  30. Zash

    It sounds like a codified implementation detail from something that may have been lost in time. (Said something like that at the time in https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2021-07-20#2021-07-20-f178a9019c1c52c2 )

  31. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I'd love to see more feedback from other servers

  32. Ge0rG

    I have a +1 tendency, but BREAKING CHANGE?!

  33. Zash

    ralphm commented approvingly further down in the logs linked

  34. daniel

    +1

  35. jonas’

    <p class="box">Note: Some service may preserve the last item despite the purge request. In such a case and if an entity needs to be certain that all items have been deleted, a query for the remaining items after a purge combined with a deletion request should be used.</p>

  36. jonas’

    how about adding that? ^

  37. Zash

    But delete removes the entire node (including all configuration), does it not?

  38. jonas’

    then "item deletion request"

  39. jonas’

    or retraction?

  40. jonas’

    what's it called?

  41. Zash

    I think retraction is the correct term, if I understand what you're trying to accomplish

  42. jonas’

    <p class="box">Note: Some service may preserve the last item despite the purge request. In such a case and if an entity needs to be certain that all items have been deleted, a query for the remaining items after a purge combined with a specific retraction request for the remaining items should be used.</p>

  43. jonas’

    like that?

  44. Zash

    Sounds good, but hacky, to me.

  45. jonas’

    do we have another, less hacky, option?

  46. jonas’

    I guess I'll just propose that provocantly on the list and vote on-list

  47. Zash

    Ge0rG, wanna poke the thread for more feedback?

  48. jonas’

    Ge0rG, was that a formal vote?

  49. Zash

    I suppose Someone™ could do a survey of implementations to see if this is actually a thing that is done anywhere

  50. jonas’

    I poked the thread, let's move on.

  51. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  52. jonas’

    None

  53. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  54. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  55. Ge0rG

    jonas’: not a formal vote from me.

  56. jonas’

    Ge0rG, thx

  57. Zash

    same time next week should work for me

  58. jonas’

    Ge0rG?

  59. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  60. Ge0rG

    sorry, I've been hanging in an overlong phone conference

  61. daniel

    +1w wfm

  62. jonas’

    thanks

  63. jonas’

    7) AOB

  64. jonas’

    assuming none as none was requested so far

  65. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  66. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  67. Zash

    Thanks jonas’, all

  68. Ge0rG

    thank you jonas’!