XMPP Council - 2022-04-13

is lacking important security considerations a reason to -1 a protoxep ? or can we ask them to fix it and postpone the vote or how does that work?

AFAIR we have accepted proto-XEPs with zero security considerations in the past, in the expectation that those would be fledged out

ack

security considerations are tricky, and the idea is to develop as much as possible of the tricky stuff after the thing has entered the IPR policy of the XSF

which is only after acceptance

that in particular makes me nervous

propose a patch right away?

the one up for vote makes JID harvesting trivial

in fact it doesn't even mention if you should have a mutual subscription before returning the result, maybe that means you shouldn't, but unsure

I think that's not undesirable in the social networking usecases

It's time

1) Roll call

at the bare minimum it should say the server should respond identically in the user-doesn't-exist and user-exists-but-has-no-public-subscriptions case

👋️

I am kind of here

o/

2) Agenda Bashing

no bashing today

3) Editors update - Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Public Subscriptions (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-public-subscriptions.html) - UPDATED: XEP-0356 (Privileged Entity) (https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0356.html)

4) Items for voting

a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Public Subscriptions (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-public-subscriptions.html)

+1

+1

+1

+1 but lacking important security considerations, really need those added first thing after acceptance

+1, also +1 to what moparisthebest said

awesome. thank you

5) Pending votes

none

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1

+1w wfm

I might be in a train next week, so expect spotty connectivity 😀

+1w wfm

7) AOB

none from me

8) Close

Thank you everyone

thanks daniel

Thanks daniel 🙂

okay, gotta run, too. see you folks!

Thanks daniel, thanks everyone!