XMPP Council - 2022-06-22

30 minute warning

I'll still be here

I probably will

good evening!

bagfuiaredufigaesduifgae

o/

jonas’, gesundheit

It’s time

1) Roll call

do we have larma?

Not really

i guess not?

2) Agenda bashing

i didn’t send out an explicit agenda for today; but we are going to use last weeks agenda

3) Editors update

a) Proposed XMPP Extension: WebSocket S2S (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/websocket-s2s.html)

b) Proposed XMPP Extension: XMPP over QUIC (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xmpp-over-quic.html)

Had no time to read but love the initiative :)

quick reminder to the editor (no rush I know you are on holiday) that we wanted to start a last call

for 215

4) Items for voting

b) Proposed XMPP Extension: XMPP over QUIC (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xmpp-over-quic.html)

daniel, thanks, I noted it in the spreadsheet of doom and will hopefully remember to look at it next week

+1 (obviously)

on-list

why do we start with 4b?

as a developer I understand the "just do everything rfc xyz is doing except" but I'm not sure this is correct form

copy paste error. sorry

I like the idea, +1.

ignore the above feedback because that's for 4a

i’m +1 on xmpp over quic

the risk of copy+pasting from the other RFC is that something is missed or wrong, I guess

i'm assuming larma is on list too

a) Proposed XMPP Extension: WebSocket S2S (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/websocket-s2s.html)

+1

now my feedback applies: as a developer I understand the "just do everything rfc xyz is doing except" but I'm not sure this is correct form

I... I have ethical issues with this and I'll need to ponder on-list.

A proper section on "motivation" may convince me, but I note that this is missing completely.

I think I put that https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/websocket-s2s.html#usecases

on-list

I don't scroll that far to find motivation :-).

does anyone else feel that this should rather go into a new version of rfc 7395?

ah that too, yes

and/or be an informational xep?

plus it creates ietfs namespaces?

eventually they should probably both be RFCs, I'm completly unfamiliar with that process though

which i think we are not allowed to do?

we're most certainly not

moparisthebest, i understand that that's why I was offering "informational" xep as a cheap alternative

it's that or live with a tmp namespace forever :)

with a different namespace

moparisthebest, could also use urn:xmpp:...?

(which we own)

I think in it's current form I have to be -1

could also just use jabber:server ? :P

re: "just do what RFC X says" I think there is prior art there, ie https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7858 which says "just do TLS like RFC X and then just do DNS like RFC Y"

daniel, just based on the namespace or what else?

a combination of the namespace thing (which would be an easy) fix. and it just not feeling right. I'm not familiar with the "prior art" you mentioned. I guess i should read into that

maybe "on list" until i checked that out

re: namespace any objections to jabber:server ?

but fwiw I don’t think creating an RFC (with your name not a number. is there a term for experimental rfc?) is super hard

yea I gotta look into that one day...

that just feels like a more proper way to handle that. or as I said make it informational to get around the hacky nature

but i also don’t want to be the only one blocking this. so let's see how the other votes turn out

I'm happy to be a second blocker if you need one ;)

just making it informational so we can ignore things seems like a hack

yeah, I agree on that moparisthebest

I don't think making it informational solves anything here

ok; but let's move on. i'll read up on the other rfcs moparisthebest mentioned and vote on list

5) Pending votes none

6) Date of next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

7) AOB

none from me

8) Close thank you all

thanks daniel

thanks all !

Various things have migrated from XEP to RFC, or back again, in the past, FWIW.

So to my mind unless Council/XSF lacks the ability to review it sensibly (which is sometimes the case with security things), I don't think something starting as a XEP and migrating over would be the end of the world.

thanks Kev that's how I'd prefer to do it anyway :)

re: s2s websocket namespace, I do include the contact of who to register namespaces with on there, unsure if it works like ALPN where the editor just rings them up and they register it or not though

The starting point to look for who's responsible for some urn:* would be https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml

So it's just expert review and look who the team leader is: > Peter Saint-Andre

We can probably contact that guy!!!! :)

Turns out jabber: isn't registered, we are all breaking the law!

Yeah, it's from before anyone knew about needing to register these things.

I feel like I've seen mention of it somewhere as a thing that was used without being registered, hysterical raisins etc.

> To date, the XML > namespaces defined within the Jabber/XMPP community have used names > of the form "jabber:*" (deprecated since early 2002) https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4854.html

Oopsies