XMPP Council - 2023-04-12

  1. gooya has left

  2. marc0s has left

  3. marc0s has joined

  4. Tobias has left

  5. Tobias has joined

  6. pep. has left

  7. moparisthebest has left

  8. marc0s has left

  9. marc0s has joined

  10. moparisthebest has joined

  11. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has joined

  12. neox has joined

  13. Kev has joined

  14. larma has joined

  15. moparisthebest has left

  16. moparisthebest has joined

  17. sonny has left

  18. sonny has joined

  19. gooya has joined

  20. gooya has left

  21. pep. has joined

  22. sonny has left

  23. sonny has joined

  24. gooya has joined

  25. gooya has left

  26. marc0s has left

  27. marc0s has joined

  28. gooya has joined

  29. gooya has left

  30. gooya has joined

  31. gooya has left

  32. gooya has joined

  33. sonny has left

  34. sonny has joined

  35. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has left

  36. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has joined

  37. gooya has left

  38. sonny has left

  39. sonny has joined

  40. gooya has joined

  41. sonny has left

  42. sonny has joined

  43. Zash has left

  44. pep. has left

  45. Zash has joined

  46. Zash has left

  47. Zash has joined

  48. marc0s has left

  49. marc0s has joined

  50. Zash has left

  51. Zash has joined

  52. Zash has left

  53. Zash has joined

  54. gooya has left

  55. gooya has joined

  56. Zash has left

  57. Zash has joined

  58. Zash has left

  59. Zash has joined

  60. Zash has left

  61. Zash has joined

  62. Zash has left

  63. Zash has joined

  64. Zash has left

  65. Zash has joined

  66. sonny has left

  67. Zash has left

  68. Zash has joined

  69. Zash has left

  70. Zash has joined

  71. sonny has joined

  72. Zash has left

  73. Zash has joined

  74. Zash has left

  75. Zash has joined

  76. Zash has left

  77. Zash has joined

  78. Zash has left

  79. Zash has joined

  80. Zash has left

  81. sonny has left

  82. sonny has joined

  83. Zash has joined

  84. Zash has left

  85. Zash has joined

  86. Zash has left

  87. Zash has joined

  88. Zash has left

  89. Zash has joined

  90. Zash has left

  91. pep. has joined

  92. Zash has joined

  93. Zash has left

  94. Zash has joined

  95. Zash has left

  96. sonny has left

  97. Zash has joined

  98. Zash has left

  99. Zash has joined

  100. marc0s has left

  101. marc0s has joined

  102. sonny has joined

  103. Zash has left

  104. marc0s has left

  105. marc0s has joined

  106. Zash has joined

  107. stpeter has joined

  108. Zash has left

  109. Zash has joined

  110. Zash has left

  111. Zash has joined

  112. Zash has left

  113. Zash has joined

  114. Zash has left

  115. Zash has joined

  116. Zash has left

  117. Zash has joined

  118. Zash has left

  119. Zash has joined

  120. Zash has left

  121. Zash has joined

  122. Zash has left

  123. Zash has joined

  124. Zash has left

  125. Zash has joined

  126. Zash has left

  127. marc0s has left

  128. marc0s has joined

  129. Zash has joined

  130. daniel

    it's time

  131. Ge0rG

    good morning everyone!

  132. daniel

    1) roll call

  133. jonas’


  134. Ge0rG

    I'm finally back

  135. larma


  136. daniel


  137. daniel

    ah he said last week that he wont be here I think

  138. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing

  139. daniel

    nothing to bash

  140. daniel

    3) Editors update

  141. daniel

    I don’t have one this week but i'll try to compose a list for next week now that the list is working again

  142. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  143. daniel

    a) Proposed Extension: SASL Upgrade Tasks https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-scram-upgrade.html

  144. daniel


  145. Ge0rG

    I'm quite lacking in SCRAM things, but this looks good from a brief review, so +1

  146. Kev

    Be aware that the lists are not 100% working at the moment. Archives liable to not be there etc.

  147. jonas’


  148. larma

    I guess it's good enough to start with, even though I think there are some issues with it, so +1

  149. daniel

    b) XEP-0198: Add section defining SASL2 and BIND2 interaction https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1215

  150. daniel


  151. Ge0rG

    This is still blocked by advancement of BIND2?

  152. jonas’


  153. Tobias has left

  154. Tobias has joined

  155. daniel

    it was previously blocked by bind 2 not being published. whether or not it should be blocked by bind 2 not being stable is up for debate

  156. Ge0rG


  157. daniel

    i'm leaning towards 'no' hence my +1 vote

  158. Ge0rG

    I can get behind that

  159. larma

    I'm confused because 90% of that PR is already in 0386?

  160. daniel

    is it?

  161. daniel

    i think that's just examples not normative

  162. larma

    e.g. "Note: If the client included a <resume/> element in its SASL2 negotiation, that MUST be processed first by the server. If that resumption is successful, the server MUST skip resource binding (a resumed session already has a resource bound) and MUST entirely ignore the <bind/> request."

  163. larma

    same sentence in both XEPs

  164. daniel

    maybe we forgot to remove them from bind 2... ?

  165. daniel

    i just remember that council was asked do you want this in bind 2 or in SM or in a new xep and we said we want this in SM

  166. larma

    there's also at least one thing that's probably wrong in the PR "the server adds a <feature/> element in the namespace "urn:xmpp:sm:3" into the <inline/> element of BIND2 which is sent in the stream features" -> bind 2 uses "<feature var="urn:xmpp:sm:3" />", no namespace here

  167. larma

    it's "just" wording, but I don't like adding wrong wording to a stable XEP

  168. daniel

    that’s fair.

  169. daniel

    do you want to veto until this is fixed?

  170. tmolitor

    well, I guess that's because I created the XEP when BIND2 syntax wasn't stable yet

  171. larma

    yes, I'll go through the PR and see if there are other issues

  172. tmolitor


  173. daniel

    but generally speaking do we still agree that this belongs into SM?

  174. larma

    and then let tmolitor know 🙂

  175. tmolitor

    larma, sure :)

  176. daniel

    and by extension that duplicate bits from bind 2 should probably be removed?

  177. stpeter has left

  178. tmolitor

    removed where? in bind2 or in 0198?

  179. daniel

    ok I'm recording a -1 for now (just so it doesn’t expire and goes through accidentially)

  180. larma

    daniel, yes, thanks

  181. daniel

    i meant removed from bind2

  182. daniel

    but it was framed as a question

  183. larma

    yes, I would remove it from bind2 and have sm only show up in bind2 in examples, but not beyond that

  184. daniel

    ok. let's move on then

  185. daniel

    c) Reconsider 'Proposed Extension: Content Types in Messages' https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/content-types.html

  186. daniel


  187. daniel

    personally i'm not a fan. but that shouldn’t stop it from being a XEP

  188. Ge0rG

    What's the normative action behind "reconsider"? A new last call?

  189. tmolitor

    MattJ: can you update bind2 accordingly?

  190. daniel

    we are voting to accept it as experimental

  191. daniel

    it is in inbox

  192. larma

    Ge0rG, think of it as being resubmitted as protoxep

  193. Ge0rG

    +1 then

  194. Kev

    I think the main reason to -1 it would be if it was considered actively harmful to adopt (which original Council did consider), or if nothing has changed in the interim.

  195. larma

    I've very mixed feeling on this one. I'm +1 because I don't want to block something from experimental that fits the formal requirements, but I have high doubts that this will be good for the ecosystem and I already fear people sending around markdown in various incompatible flavors arguing that it's "supported" by this XEp

  196. larma

    I've very mixed feeling on this one. I'm +1 because I don't want to block something from experimental that fits the formal requirements, but I have high doubts that this will be good for the ecosystem and I already fear people sending around markdown in various incompatible flavors arguing that it's "supported" by this XEP

  197. jonas’

    I share the concerns of larma

  198. Kev

    I haven't looked to see if there's anything in procedure that would prevent future Councils accepting what was previously rejected.

  199. jonas’

    also the text/xml encoding example in there gives me headaches

  200. Ge0rG

    What's the original author's stance?

  201. Kev

    They liked it then and they still like it now.

  202. daniel

    i don’t think "fits the ecosystem" is something that matters at this stage

  203. daniel

    i think that's a question that will come up in last call

  204. Kev

    > i don’t think "fits the ecosystem" is something that matters at this stage I think "not actively harmful to the ecosystem" is almost the only thing that matters at this stage.

  205. larma

    Can we instantly issue a last call and then reject it? 😀

  206. Kev

    Was that a serious procedural question?

  207. larma


  208. larma

    But if it was proposed for last call now, I would vote to reject and I don't see how this can be changed without fundamentally changing the idea of the XEP

  209. Ge0rG

    larma: I think the procedural difference is that the community gets a chance to discuss it, and to convince you of its importance

  210. jonas’

    I'm +1.

  211. larma

    Well, if one entirely removed the alternative encodings I'd probably be fine with it

  212. jonas’

    Even though this may not be fully useful or even good for messaging contexts, I guess it makes sense to have something like this at least for pubsub use-cases (atom).

  213. daniel

    fwiw I think the author specifically wanted those

  214. larma

    Actually, you can just do content type multipart/alternative then 😉

  215. Kev

    > I would like to re-introduce this proposal for publication as an experimental XEP. More and more use Markdown (as an example). While there are objections by some to use Markdown, the purpose of the XEP is not to force those that do not want to use Markdown, to use it, but to allow those that want to send Markdown with a common way to do it, without just sending it as plain text (as many do). The extension is not focused on Markdown, but tries to solve the more general problem on how to send content, regardless of format, in a way that is understandable by those that support that format, as well as those that don’t. It reuses the common content types available in other protocols on the Internet to do so, so the pattern is well known and works in other non-XMPP-based protocols.

    👍️ 1
  216. daniel

    because multiple contents is one of the main points the previous council complain about too

  217. Kev

    (From Peter Waher)

  218. Link Mauve

    jonas’, Atom already has this, all three elements of title, summary and content can be either plain text, &lt;-encoded HTML, or embedded XHTML.

  219. larma

    I'd like to point out that RFC 7763 has a specific section to mention that markdown should not be used for publishing, but only for writing and editing. If one wants to use markdown in XMPP, the "correct" way to do so would be to convert it to (X)HTML before sending

  220. larma

    daniel, please record a 0 for me

  221. daniel

    we are technically running over but we have 2 more items to vote on. is everyone ok by extending this meeting by 15-20 mins?

  222. larma

    fine by me

  223. vanitasvitae_ has left

  224. vanitasvitae_ has joined

  225. daniel

    Ge0rG, jonas’ are you still here or should we continue next week?

  226. Ge0rG

    I'm sorry I had to get on an urgent call and am afk

  227. daniel

    OK. I’ll move the remaining two items to next week

    👍️ 1
  228. daniel

    Pending votes

  229. daniel

    i’m going to quickly take the chance to vote on publish_node_full +1

  230. jonas’

    I am still here

  231. jonas’


  232. jonas’

    do you have a link to pubsub node full please?

  233. larma


  234. jonas’

    also, I'd like to join larma in a +0 on the content type thing, I think that more appropriately reflects what I think of it

  235. daniel

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1275 <= that's from two weeks ago and you voted +1

  236. jonas’

    ah great :)

  237. daniel

    jonas’, I've changed your vote

  238. daniel


  239. daniel

    6) Date of next

  240. daniel

    +1w wfm

  241. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  242. larma

    I'm travelling next week, but will likely be able to make it nonetheless

  243. daniel

    larma, noted

  244. daniel

    7) AOB

  245. daniel

    please note that we are already over time so unless it's urgent just tell me to put it on the agenda for next week

  246. daniel

    ok assuming nothing urgent then

  247. daniel

    8) Close

  248. daniel

    Thanks all

  249. larma

    Thanks daniel

  250. sonny has left

  251. marc0s has left

  252. marc0s has joined

  253. sonny has joined

  254. pep. has left

  255. jonas’

    Thanks daniel

  256. Tobias has left

  257. Tobias has joined

  258. Tobias has left

  259. Tobias has joined

  260. larma has left

  261. marc0s has left

  262. marc0s has joined

  263. Tobias has left

  264. Tobias has joined

  265. Tobias has left

  266. Tobias has joined

  267. Tobias has left

  268. Tobias has joined

  269. Tobias has left

  270. Tobias has joined

  271. Tobias has left

  272. Tobias has joined

  273. pep. has joined

  274. marc0s has left

  275. marc0s has joined

  276. Tobias has left

  277. Tobias has joined

  278. stpeter has joined

  279. stpeter has left

  280. Tobias has left

  281. Tobias has joined

  282. marc0s has left

  283. marc0s has joined

  284. stpeter has joined

  285. marc0s has left

  286. marc0s has joined

  287. Tobias has left

  288. Tobias has joined

  289. Tobias has left

  290. Tobias has joined

  291. Tobias has left

  292. Tobias has joined

  293. pep. has left

  294. stpeter has left

  295. stpeter has joined

  296. stpeter has left

  297. paul has left

  298. marc0s has left

  299. marc0s has joined

  300. pep. has joined

  301. stpeter has joined

  302. paul has joined

  303. larma has joined

  304. flow has left

  305. moparisthebest has left

  306. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has left

  307. marc0s has left

  308. marc0s has joined

  309. stpeter has left

  310. stpeter has joined

  311. moparisthebest has joined

  312. stpeter has left

  313. Kev has left

  314. stpeter has joined

  315. neox has left

  316. stpeter has left

  317. larma has left

  318. Syndace has left

  319. Syndace has joined

  320. emus has left

  321. gooya has left

  322. emus has joined

  323. gooya has joined

  324. stpeter has joined

  325. pep. has left

  326. stpeter has left