XMPP Council - 2022-02-16


  1. marc0s has left
  2. marc0s has joined
  3. pprrks has left
  4. pprrks has joined
  5. neox has left
  6. pprrks has left
  7. pprrks has joined
  8. ncahuilla has joined
  9. pprrks has left
  10. pprrks has joined
  11. ncahuilla has left
  12. pprrks has left
  13. pprrks has joined
  14. pprrks has left
  15. pprrks has joined
  16. pprrks has left
  17. pprrks has joined
  18. pprrks has left
  19. pprrks has joined
  20. pprrks has left
  21. pprrks has joined
  22. ncahuilla has joined
  23. pprrks has left
  24. pprrks has joined
  25. SouL has joined
  26. ncahuilla has left
  27. pprrks has left
  28. pprrks has joined
  29. pprrks has left
  30. pprrks has joined
  31. pprrks has left
  32. pprrks has joined
  33. pprrks has left
  34. pprrks has joined
  35. ncahuilla has joined
  36. ncahuilla has left
  37. pprrks has left
  38. pprrks has joined
  39. ncahuilla has joined
  40. ncahuilla has left
  41. SouL has left
  42. pprrks has left
  43. pprrks has joined
  44. ncahuilla has joined
  45. pprrks has left
  46. pprrks has joined
  47. ncahuilla has left
  48. pprrks has left
  49. pprrks has joined
  50. pprrks has left
  51. pprrks has joined
  52. pprrks has left
  53. pprrks has joined
  54. ncahuilla has joined
  55. pprrks has left
  56. pprrks has joined
  57. ncahuilla has left
  58. pprrks has left
  59. pprrks has joined
  60. pprrks has left
  61. pprrks has joined
  62. ChronosX88 has joined
  63. pprrks has left
  64. pprrks has joined
  65. pprrks has left
  66. pprrks has joined
  67. daniel has left
  68. daniel has joined
  69. SouL has joined
  70. menel has joined
  71. ncahuilla has joined
  72. ncahuilla has left
  73. msavoritias has joined
  74. msavoritias has left
  75. msavoritias has joined
  76. marc0s has left
  77. marc0s has joined
  78. ncahuilla has joined
  79. pprrks has left
  80. pprrks has joined
  81. Tobias has joined
  82. pprrks has left
  83. ncahuilla has left
  84. ChronosX88 has left
  85. ChronosX88 has joined
  86. ncahuilla has joined
  87. ncahuilla has left
  88. pprrks has joined
  89. me9 has joined
  90. pprrks has left
  91. pprrks has joined
  92. pprrks has left
  93. pprrks has joined
  94. ncahuilla has joined
  95. ncahuilla has left
  96. me9 has left
  97. dwd has joined
  98. ncahuilla has joined
  99. dwd has left
  100. ncahuilla has left
  101. pprrks has left
  102. pprrks has joined
  103. ncahuilla has joined
  104. ncahuilla has left
  105. pprrks has left
  106. ncahuilla has joined
  107. ncahuilla has left
  108. pprrks has joined
  109. pprrks has left
  110. marc0s has left
  111. marc0s has joined
  112. pprrks has joined
  113. marc0s has left
  114. marc0s has joined
  115. marc0s has left
  116. marc0s has joined
  117. marc0s has left
  118. marc0s has joined
  119. ncahuilla has joined
  120. marc0s has left
  121. marc0s has joined
  122. debacle has joined
  123. ncahuilla has left
  124. menel has left
  125. neox has joined
  126. pprrks has left
  127. ncahuilla has joined
  128. alex11 has left
  129. pprrks has joined
  130. ncahuilla has left
  131. pprrks has left
  132. pprrks has joined
  133. pprrks has left
  134. ncahuilla has joined
  135. ncahuilla has left
  136. pprrks has joined
  137. pprrks has left
  138. ncahuilla has joined
  139. ncahuilla has left
  140. pprrks has joined
  141. pprrks has left
  142. marc0s has left
  143. marc0s has joined
  144. pprrks has joined
  145. pprrks has left
  146. ncahuilla has joined
  147. marc0s has left
  148. marc0s has joined
  149. ncahuilla has left
  150. Wojtek has joined
  151. pprrks has joined
  152. pprrks has left
  153. pprrks has joined
  154. ncahuilla has joined
  155. pprrks has left
  156. ncahuilla has left
  157. pprrks has joined
  158. pprrks has left
  159. pprrks has joined
  160. Wojtek has left
  161. ncahuilla has joined
  162. pprrks has left
  163. Wojtek has joined
  164. pprrks has joined
  165. ncahuilla has left
  166. pprrks has left
  167. pprrks has joined
  168. larma has left
  169. pprrks has left
  170. menel has joined
  171. pprrks has joined
  172. ncahuilla has joined
  173. ncahuilla has left
  174. Wojtek has left
  175. msavoritias has left
  176. msavoritias has joined
  177. ncahuilla has joined
  178. ncahuilla has left
  179. dwd has joined
  180. pprrks has left
  181. Syndace has left
  182. Syndace has joined
  183. pprrks has joined
  184. pprrks has left
  185. larma has joined
  186. Wojtek has joined
  187. kusoneko has left
  188. kusoneko has joined
  189. pprrks has joined
  190. dwd has left
  191. marc0s has left
  192. marc0s has joined
  193. pprrks has left
  194. ChronosX88 has left
  195. ChronosX88 has joined
  196. marc0s has left
  197. marc0s has joined
  198. marc0s has left
  199. marc0s has joined
  200. marc0s has left
  201. marc0s has joined
  202. pprrks has joined
  203. ncahuilla has joined
  204. ncahuilla has left
  205. me9 has joined
  206. ncahuilla has joined
  207. ncahuilla has left
  208. Wojtek has left
  209. marc0s has left
  210. marc0s has joined
  211. ncahuilla has joined
  212. ncahuilla has left
  213. Wojtek has joined
  214. moparisthebest FYI for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1158 I intend to vote +0 and unless everyone else thinks it should go through as-is change it up to not Obsolete it, just remove DNS method (and mention it in security considerations for posterity) and change it to only add urn:xmpp:alt-connections:xbosh, I'd appreciate a indication whether you all think this is the right way forward or not
  215. ncahuilla has joined
  216. ncahuilla has left
  217. daniel i literally just now walked into my hotel room and got connected to the internet...
  218. Ge0rG Yay!
  219. daniel 1) roll call
  220. moparisthebest o/
  221. Ge0rG /o\
  222. Wojtek has left
  223. moparisthebest (that shoulder injury looks painful!)
  224. daniel the lady at the check in desk asked me to give a sales pitch for Conversations. that was unexpected and slowed me down...
  225. jonas’ present
  226. moparisthebest haha awesome
  227. daniel do we have a larma?
  228. larma Somewhat
  229. Ge0rG daniel: did you arrive with a huge poster?
  230. daniel i did not unfortunatly. but i was registered as a business travel to not pay tourism tax
  231. daniel 2) Agenda bashing
  232. daniel none
  233. daniel 3) Editors update
  234. daniel jonas’, published the xep4 and 60 changes we voted on last week
  235. daniel and a new proto xep that we are going to vote on later
  236. jonas’ do we need to add ownership changes for muji to the agenda, larma?
  237. jonas’ i.e. did you get a reply from the authors in that regard?
  238. daniel i have not seen public emails? did i miss them?
  239. larma I haven't had time to write a mail to ML yet, which we agreed to do first.
  240. jonas’ ack, I was confused then. carry on.
  241. daniel 4) Items for voting
  242. daniel a) Obsolete XEP-0156 and add warnings https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1158
  243. jonas’ I can live with that. +1
  244. Wojtek has joined
  245. Ge0rG We are removing DNS but also HTTP Lookup Method, right?
  246. daniel just to be clear. this essentially makes bosh obsolete?
  247. moparisthebest so http lookup is already defined in the RFC
  248. jonas’ no, HTTPS is delegated to RFC 7395
  249. daniel because you can’t discover bosh any more?
  250. moparisthebest but this removes bosh, so my alternate proposal is remove everything else but adding bosh
  251. jonas’ ah
  252. moparisthebest hence my +0 vote
  253. jonas’ I did not realize this removes BOSH, I thought that was also covered by RFC 7395
  254. moparisthebest (see my comment right before the meeting)
  255. jonas’ in that case, -1, because we should keep BOSH discoverable
  256. moparisthebest I didn't either until it was pointed out
  257. Ge0rG yeah, -1 because of BOSH
  258. daniel i'm on board with getting rid of dns and getting rid of http
  259. moparisthebest cool, I'll rework the PR for next week
  260. daniel but i do think we need to keep bosh
  261. daniel -1
  262. jonas’ moparisthebest, thank you :)
  263. daniel do you want to vote on this as well larma ?
  264. Ge0rG maybe we can get rid of 0156 if we put BOSH into some other adequate place?
  265. larma I don't think we need to keep BOSH forever, but probably still need it today, so -1
  266. daniel thank you
  267. daniel wrt BOSH i think it's interesting that w3c eventsource is still around too (even though websocket exist)
  268. daniel but that's a discussion for another day probably
  269. daniel b) Obsolete and update Security Considerations for XEP-0138 and XEP-0229 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1159
  270. moparisthebest I think I'll remove httppoll too unless people think it's useful..
  271. moparisthebest +1 on this one
  272. larma +1 on b)
  273. jonas’ (I would like to point out that writing a MUST NOT in an obsolete document seems kinda pointless :))
  274. Ge0rG I agree with obsoleting, but "this method is deemed insecure and MUST NOT be used" is a normative change and we MUST NOT enforce policy with protocol
  275. daniel ironcially we just deployed compression on a big project last week
  276. Sam I'm torn on this; I get the reasoning, but I also have deployed it on large projects and found it *extremely* beneficial
  277. larma Ge0rG: if you implement it, you must not use it ;)
  278. moparisthebest lots of insecure things are useful
  279. jonas’ moparisthebest, I think I would be happier if, instead of changing the normative text, we add a huge security notice to the top of the document and the place where you'd change the normative text instead
  280. jonas’ otherwise, it seems that the "MUST NOT" thing is, in fact, obsolete.
  281. moparisthebest the rationale behind putting the "MUST NOT" in regard to the *method* specifically is because I expect a new compression method to come along and resurrect the negotiation
  282. jonas’ right, but at the same time, you're obsoleting that standard, including the MUST NOT
  283. jonas’ that seems off
  284. Ge0rG -1 because of the MUST NOT
  285. moparisthebest I'm not married to it, happy to change as you all see fit
  286. Ge0rG I'd be okay with just obsoleting and adding a fat red warning in the security considerations
  287. jonas’ what Ge0rG says.
  288. daniel yeah i think i'm -1 too. either just obsolete it (and put exi or zstd or whatever in a new xep). or just add a security warning
  289. jonas’ -1 to b: what Ge0rG says :).
  290. Sam *thinks outloud* maybe it would be good to have an "editorial notes" section at the top of the XEP that's non-normative and doesn't require any update to the version because it's not actually part of the xep.
  291. jonas’ Sam, unrelated to this, because stuff like that should definitely be versioned (thinking attic)
  292. moparisthebest I'll update this one too for next week :)
  293. Sam Nah, it would be versioned in Git and would be something the editor or council or whomever could update. Maybe call it "Editor Notes" and "Council Notes" or something. We don't version every website page in the attic
  294. Sam But anyways, not a discussion fo rhere
  295. ncahuilla has joined
  296. Sam Just throwing the idea out while a relevant thing is being discussed.
  297. jonas’ moparisthebest, thank you very much
  298. daniel c) XEP-0045: Remove some more mentions of GC 1.0 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1163
  299. daniel on list
  300. daniel it'll probably be fine. just want to double check later
  301. Ge0rG I think that "[citation needed]" is not appropriate in a XEP
  302. Ge0rG also on-list
  303. larma Same as daniel
  304. jonas’ on list, also what Ge0rG says, I'll leave an editorial note
  305. daniel d) Obsolete some deferred XEP (0008, 0038, 0051) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727/
  306. moparisthebest yea I'd be +1 if not for [citation needed]
  307. jonas’ daniel, can we split that vote?
  308. daniel yes we can
  309. jonas’ I'd like to vote +1 on obsoleting 0008, but I don't have an immediate opinion on the other two
  310. Ge0rG on-list
  311. daniel right. let me call them seperatly
  312. Ge0rG but I agree we should vote per-XEP
  313. daniel your votes on obsoleting 0008
  314. daniel on list
  315. larma I'm +1 on all of them
  316. Ge0rG +1
  317. moparisthebest +1 on obsoleting 0008
  318. jonas’ +1 on obsoleting 0008
  319. jonas’ (using the silence: I also have an AOB)
  320. daniel yes give me a second. i'm live editing the spreadsheet on a notebook screen :-)
  321. jonas’ shall I take over?
  322. jonas’ (for editing, that is)
  323. jonas’ (well, I just filled in a few blanks)
  324. daniel ok. your votes on obsoleting 0038 now please
  325. jonas’ on-list
  326. daniel larma's vote has been recorded already
  327. moparisthebest +1 on obsoleting 0038
  328. Ge0rG +1, but I'd like to have a XEP for mapping ASCII smiley to Unicode
  329. daniel i'm on list
  330. jonas’ Ge0rG, that sounds more like a thing for modernxmpp / client UI
  331. pep. Ge0rG, jabber:x:data
  332. daniel next vote: obsolete 0051
  333. moparisthebest I'm +1 with prejudice on obsoleting 0051 because it needs major security considerations and just has "To follow" yikes.... fyi the very important security considerations are covered by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6120#section-4.9.3.19
  334. Ge0rG it's been deferred for over a decade, but is there anybody using it?
  335. jonas’ +1, I think this is best addressed with <see-other-host/> stream error in RFC 6120, which also talks about the corresponding security considerations.
  336. jonas’ (which I've actually seen in the wild)
  337. daniel i'm on list for this one too
  338. Ge0rG alright, given <see-other-host> I'm +1 on obsoleting
  339. moparisthebest I sure hope no one is using it, or if they are, I hope they are using it in a secure way... :/
  340. daniel ok thank you
  341. daniel moving on
  342. daniel e) ProtoXEP: MUC Affiliations Versioning https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-affiliations-versioning.html
  343. daniel have we ever done attribute namespaces?
  344. daniel last time there was a huge debate about them. but i dont recall the outcome
  345. pep. Yes
  346. daniel pep where?
  347. jonas’ the outcome is that some people whose XML library can't deal with them don't like them
  348. pep. 103? Referenced in the stickers thing
  349. Sam FWIW, I have seen multiple implementations (not just my own) that this will break even though technically I'm using an XML parser with namespace read support
  350. jonas’ on-list for the protoxep
  351. larma I'm +1 on this
  352. Ge0rG can't we put a child element into the <x/>?
  353. moparisthebest I'm on-list, my gut reaction is to run from attribute namespaces
  354. pep. I'm not sure why that would be a blocker for experimental anyway
  355. Ge0rG on-list as well
  356. daniel attribute namespaces aside i'm thinking that we might want to think this bigger and version presences/roles as well
  357. jonas’ pep., I agree, it shouldn't be a blocker for experimental
  358. daniel and not just affiliations?
  359. Ge0rG daniel: fully agree
  360. pep. daniel, there's already two XEPs for presence, doing about the same thing
  361. larma daniel, for presences there are 311 and 436
  362. Ge0rG it'd be awesome to get a differential membership update mechanism for huge MUCs
  363. daniel but yes personal opinions aside I agree that those aren’t blockers for experimental
  364. daniel i'm +1
  365. Ge0rG on-list
  366. jonas’ I still need to read it, so I'll stay with on list
  367. daniel ok. thank you everyone
  368. daniel 5) Pending votes
  369. daniel a) Georg on 'Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Type Filtering'
  370. Ge0rG +1
  371. daniel 6) Date of Next
  372. daniel +1w wfm
  373. moparisthebest +1w wfm
  374. jonas’ +1w wfm
  375. daniel 7) AOB
  376. larma +1w wfm
  377. daniel jonas’, mentioned one but we are out of time
  378. daniel is everyone fine with extending by 10mins?
  379. moparisthebest Yes
  380. jonas’ we can also move it to next week, it's not urgent
  381. Ge0rG I'm still semi-here, so ok
  382. jonas’ ok, really quick
  383. daniel ok jonas’ go ahead
  384. jonas’ the past two years with pandemic and so on have advanced the A/V technology and probably increase most of ours exposure to that.
  385. jonas’ I was thinking whether we should or want to migrate this meeting to an audio-by-default, video-if-desired, chat-as-fallback format
  386. jonas’ you can think on that in the week until the next meeting and maybe we can have a discussion then
  387. jonas’ infrastructure won't be a problem (I have a Jitsi to spare)
  388. Ge0rG I'm very much -1, not only for auditability reasons
  389. daniel jonas’, i was actually considering proposing the same. although maybe on a monthly basis
  390. daniel like every first meeting in a month or something
  391. Zash Try Dino? 😉
  392. larma I wouldn't be entirely against, but I kinda don't like the idea of using not-standardized XMPP for this and I also don't think everyone wants to use Dino
  393. Sam The minutes would have to be written as the meeting goes on unless it's being recorded for auditability; that seems desirable though. Stuff gets missed when people do them afterwards.
  394. jonas’ I'd volunteer to write proper online minutes for auditability
  395. jonas’ (I've been doing that for various work meetings in the past two years and it's not a problem for me)
  396. Kev Didn't want to derail the meeting, but for 'editorial notes', I think they're a fine idea, but I also think there's no reason not to version them - numbers are cheap and we already have an editorial numbering scheme (the last number).
  397. pep. Judging by what minutes looked like in board (at the time) I'd hope that'd be worth it :/
  398. moparisthebest I also prefer text format as a standard, but I'm fine with audio if everyone else wanted it, or on a monthly basis or whatever
  399. daniel ok Ge0rG seems to be a hard no. but thank you for the suggestion. maybe something to think about or reconsider at a later date
  400. Sam I guess that's fine; versioning them as part of the XEP just means we have to bump a 10 year old final xep just because the editor wanted to add the note "by the way, this typo is incorrect in the example, please ignore it" or something
  401. jonas’ I'd like to have a proper discussion including Ge0rG next week when we are not running out of time :)
  402. daniel ok
  403. daniel Close
  404. daniel thank you everyone
  405. jonas’ thanks daniel!
  406. moparisthebest Thanks!
  407. pep. Not in council but that'd be a -1 from the floor. Maybe there can be trials to see how that'd go :x
  408. Kev re: Video/Voice/Text - High bandwidth is useful for Council themselves, if it's the only thing they're doing at the time and not e.g. on trains etc., while text is really useful for people following along, or reading up later. Maybe a poll of non-Council to see how many people actually take advantage of being able to read the raw logs would reveal that I'm the only person who does it, and there wouldn't be much value in keeping that if video was better for Council.
  409. Sam FWIW re video calls: I also thought about proposing something like this a few times when I was on the council. Having a face to face chat once a month or more would probably make things go smoother the rest of the time.
  410. daniel two years into the pandemic i figured out that i can hook up my full frame mirror less camera over usb and use it as a webcam (i had always assumed i needed a hdmi->usb capture device). but with gphoto it just works
  411. jonas’ out
  412. moparisthebest Also Zash some badxmpp that sends https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6120#section-4.9.3.19 or 0051 before auth or where the target has a bad certificate would be interesting
  413. Zash moparisthebest, topic for somewhere else, probably jdev@ tho
  414. Kev > I guess that's fine; versioning them as part of the XEP just means we have to bump a 10 year old final xep just because the editor wanted to add the note "by the way, this typo is incorrect in the example, please ignore it" or something That's true, but it's a bump where we already encode in the version number that the change was meaningless :)
  415. moparisthebest Just brought it up re: our vote here :)
  416. Sam Does bumping the version mean council has to weigh in for final XEPs? That seems to defeat the purpose
  417. moparisthebest I used to be strictly against audio and especially video in preference to text chat, but the last 2 years have shown me they can add some value when used periodically
  418. pep. « Kev> [..] how many people actually take advantage of being able to read the raw logs » I also do that often. Many things that get missed in minutes
  419. moparisthebest Sam: editorial changes don't need council, even if versions get bumped I think...
  420. daniel yes if anything we should probably start doing 1 in 4 meetings with A/V or something. see how people like it
  421. daniel (instead of every week)
  422. Zash (and do a Summit, so we remember there are actual humans attached to these nicknames/avatars)
  423. Kev > Sam: editorial changes don't need council, even if versions get bumped I think... This.
  424. Sam Hmm, I thought final couldn't be bumped at all and draft required council.
  425. Sam Anyways, the whole point in my mind is that it's *not* part of the XEP, it could just as easily be a separate wiki page it's just included at the top for convenience, but I don't really care either way.
  426. Kev And, I realise this might be a pointless idea, but I wonder if there are services where people will transcribe video meetings for you, and if the XSF might be willing to pay for such a service for Council meetings if they went video - that way those of us who like to read up would be no worse off than now, and Council could enjoy the extra bandwidth.
  427. Sam There are; I forget what the one I used in the past was called but it cost <a lot> (I forget that too, just that it was expensive)
  428. ncahuilla has left
  429. pep. A/V for crappy links isn't exactly great either fwiw. It'd be the case for me (if I were in council) but how many times have we heard Ge0r.G complain about his link :)
  430. Sam Although that was live transcription actually, so maybe it would be cheaper after the fact
  431. larma https://cloud.google.com/speech-to-text/pricing first 60 minutes free per month 😀
  432. pep. yay another google service
  433. Sam Seems reasonable
  434. Sam I forget this can be automated now.
  435. moparisthebest How do those do with accents I wonder?
  436. moparisthebest There are some even British accents that are completely incomprehensible to me
  437. Sam The robots are probably better at this than you, they have a larger training set :)
  438. Sam (that's a serious statement, not a joke)
  439. marc0s has left
  440. marc0s has joined
  441. moparisthebest Very possible, I never know if that's the case or whether 100% of their training data were people with California accents
  442. marc0s has left
  443. marc0s has joined
  444. mdosch has left
  445. mdosch has joined
  446. Ge0rG moparisthebest: I think the problem won't be the accents but rather the slang.
  447. Ge0rG translation services are horrible at technical slang
  448. moparisthebest Probably true
  449. pep. Too Many TLAs
  450. jonas’ I'll see if I can get a demo of a minutes file I created from an A/V meeting
  451. marc0s has left
  452. marc0s has joined
  453. pprrks has left
  454. marc0s has left
  455. marc0s has joined
  456. marc0s has left
  457. marc0s has joined
  458. pprrks has joined
  459. dwd has joined
  460. alex11 has joined
  461. daniel has left
  462. daniel has joined
  463. pprrks has left
  464. ncahuilla has joined
  465. ncahuilla has left
  466. ncahuilla has joined
  467. ncahuilla has left
  468. ncahuilla has joined
  469. ncahuilla has left
  470. marc0s has left
  471. marc0s has joined
  472. ncahuilla has joined
  473. ncahuilla has left
  474. me9 has left
  475. me9 has joined
  476. ncahuilla has joined
  477. marc0s has left
  478. marc0s has joined
  479. me9 has left
  480. me9 has joined
  481. ncahuilla has left
  482. Wojtek has left
  483. marc0s has left
  484. marc0s has joined
  485. ncahuilla has joined
  486. dwd has left
  487. ncahuilla has left
  488. me9 has left
  489. me9 has joined
  490. dwd has joined
  491. ncahuilla has joined
  492. ncahuilla has left
  493. marc0s has left
  494. marc0s has joined
  495. marc0s has left
  496. marc0s has joined
  497. ncahuilla has joined
  498. ncahuilla has left
  499. debacle has left
  500. debacle has joined
  501. dwd has left
  502. debacle has left
  503. debacle has joined
  504. ncahuilla has joined
  505. ncahuilla has left
  506. msavoritias has left
  507. pprrks has joined
  508. pprrks has left
  509. debacle has left
  510. debacle has joined
  511. Tobias has left
  512. me9 has left
  513. ChronosX88 has left
  514. ncahuilla has joined
  515. ncahuilla has left
  516. alex11 has left
  517. menel has left
  518. ncahuilla has joined
  519. ncahuilla has left
  520. marc0s has left
  521. marc0s has joined
  522. marc0s has left
  523. marc0s has joined
  524. ncahuilla has joined
  525. SouL has left
  526. ncahuilla has left
  527. paul has left
  528. ncahuilla has joined
  529. neox has left
  530. ncahuilla has left
  531. marc0s has left
  532. marc0s has joined