XMPP Council - 2022-04-29

  1. daniel

    Link Mauve, what do you want council to do with this?

  2. daniel

    take ownership away?

  3. daniel

    ping peter again?

  4. Link Mauve

    Maybe one of these.

  5. Link Mauve

    It might also be a case of it being stable enough for advancement.

  6. daniel

    do we have someone who wants to become author?

  7. daniel

    tbh it's not fully clear to me what 371 brings to the table that 176 doesn't. it mentions TCP but that could easily be done with an additional disco feature in 176

  8. daniel

    and/or just do it. i mean it's pretty clear how one would send tcp candidates with 176 if one would ignore the spec (and some implementations actually did this after parsing sdp)

  9. daniel

    personally (not with my council hat on) i'd honestly be fine with just abandoning 371

  10. daniel

    iirc 371 is also more explicit about allowing trickle ice. but a lot of 176 already do this just fine

  11. daniel

    371's goal apparently is to "avoid confusion" but i'm afraid it will actually add more. with 176 currently being in the compliance suite and on the verge of somewhat being implemented in the wild (finally)

  12. daniel

    and I think you don’t necessarily even need tcp for file transfer. datachannels can be reliable too

  13. Link Mauve

    Hmm, that might be the case; I don’t think I’ve seen it implemented in the wild yet.

  14. daniel

    I guess we can start a last call. see if we get feedback (that PR of yours is feedback too); see if the author processes the feedback (as authors are supposed to); and if they don’t it's rightfully abandoned? and we will see if there is actually any feedback (demand) from the community to have the XEP