XMPP Council - 2021-09-07

  1. jonas’

    Reminder that I'm not available for chairing tomorrow

  2. Ge0rG

    Damn, you really put 313 onto the agenda

  3. jonas’


  4. Ge0rG

    For the record: my opposition is not to publishing it as it is implemented but as it is written, where it diverges from the former

  5. Ge0rG

    And maybe a little to try to force the author to write down the already known archival rules, but that plan obviously failed for the last year or so

  6. jonas’

    I'm not a fan of trying to force authors

  7. jonas’

    Ge0rG, if you think that implemented is not a subset of what is written substantially, then please write that (and only that) down somewhere

  8. Ge0rG

    jonas’: writing to the list now, in response to my LC mail, trying to sort those issues into buckets.

  9. jonas’

    thank you very much!

  10. jonas’

    gotta clean the kitchen now

  11. Ge0rG

    jonas’: btw, your email client is broken. It's adding newlines into URLs

  12. jonas’


  13. jonas’

    I know

  14. jonas’

    one day I'll fix that

  15. Zash

    Web browser is apparently okay with this

  16. Ge0rG

    Zash: there is a weird workaround where browsers silently remove newlines from pasted URLs

  17. Zash


  18. moparisthebest

    fixed: > there is a weird workaround where browsers silently *do things to* URLs

  19. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I've reviewed and grouped my last very long LC feedback into blocking and non-blocking, as discussed last time

  20. jonas’

    I'm gonna make raspberry cheesecake now so unlikely that I'm going to read this before thursday

  21. jonas’

    but thanks :)

  22. Ge0rG

    TL;DR bad news: I'm not going to +1 tomorrow.

  23. MattJ

    Re. archiving rules: I have stated elsewhere (I feel like it was the list, but it was a while ago) that I'm happy to document them, but not in 313

  24. MattJ

    Cross-referencing is fine

  25. MattJ

    The archiving rules are not as stable as the query protocol

  26. Ge0rG

    MattJ: yeah, which is why I've put them into the "non-blocking" bucket.

  27. Ge0rG

    my fear was just that the rules will never get documented and we have a kind of 0066 tribal-knowledge-required situation

  28. MattJ

    I agree with that sentiment

  29. MattJ

    But someone needs to document it, and I don't see the lack of documentation as a reason to block 313 any longer (it seems we agree about that anyway)

  30. jonas’

    Ge0rG, FWIW, I consider adding the CVE stuff mostly editorial

  31. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I don't disagree with that, but the CVE stuff is just icing on the cake to the non existing security considerations section

  32. jonas’

    Ge0rG, -> xsf@, too