XSF Editor Team - 2015-10-15

  1. stpeter has joined

  2. stpeter has left

  3. SamWhited has left

  4. SamWhited has left

  5. SamWhited has left

  6. SamWhited has left

  7. SamWhited has left

  8. SamWhited has left

  9. Flow has joined

  10. Flow has left

  11. Ash has joined

  12. Kev has left

  13. Kev has left

  14. m&m has joined

  15. stpeter has joined

  16. m&m waves

  17. SamWhited nods

  18. stpeter


  19. m&m

    yet another RFC with your name on it

  20. stpeter

    and you :-)

  21. stpeter

    I still have 3 I-Ds to submit before the cutoff on Monday, sigh

  22. m&m

    do you want to skip on editor stuff then>

  23. m&m


  24. stpeter

    it's OK, let's make some progress

  25. m&m


  26. m&m

    first, something we're going to need to address

  27. m&m

    Kev found what he feels are substantive changes in XEP-0030

  28. m&m

    around how xml:lang factors into uniqueness

  29. stpeter

    right, I saw a message about that somewhere

  30. stpeter

    did we track down the check-in that modified this?

  31. m&m

    yes, sometime back in 2008

  32. stpeter

    this paragraph, eh? "Each <identity/> element MUST possess the 'category' and 'type' attributes specifying the category and type for the entity, and MAY possess a 'name' attribute specifying a natural-language name for the entity; the <identity/> element MAY also possess a standard 'xml:lang' attribute, which enables the entity to return localized results if desired (i.e., the <query/> element MAY include multiple <identity/> elements with the same category+type but with different 'xml:lang' values, however the <query/> element MUST NOT include multiple <identity/> elements with the same category+type+xml:lang but with different 'name' values)."

  33. m&m


  34. m&m


  35. Kev

    I think I suggested list discussion, mostly (disclaimer, I'm ill today, not firing on all cylinders).

  36. Kev

    Just to check we weren't about to include a substantive change without discussion.

  37. Kev

    It looks like the change in question was ages old, but never included in a new revision.

  38. Kev

    And at some point it accidentally got regenerated into the current version, like the 313 stuff.

  39. stpeter

    I'd need to review the discussion list history from June of 2008

  40. stpeter

    and earlier

  41. stpeter

    perhaps this was discussed as part of the run-up to 2.4 but was left out somehow.

  42. Kev

    I didn't do that. But yes, that would be sensible.

  43. stpeter

    I can't recall.

  44. Kev

    I think I did a search of my mail archives for likely-looking queries and didn't find anything, but maybe I'm mistaking it for something else.

  45. Kev

    Anyway - my block was the temporary check-we-don't-accidentally-break-something type, not the this-must-not-happen type.

  46. stpeter

    I don't have a quick answer.

  47. Kev

    I'm not sure that -1s are the appropriate mechanism here, but I don't think we have anything else available to say "Oh, wait, a minute, before we do that...", because otherwise the votes expire and it runs through on majority.

  48. stpeter

    I might have been thinking this was a sensible clarification, I might have received some implementation feedback asking for clarification, it could have resulted from discussion about XEP-0115 somewhere, etc.

  49. Kev

    -1 on something that seems broadly right feels wrong, but there we go.

  50. m&m

    I'm now thinking of XMP Council's -1 as equivalent to the IESG's *DISCUSS*

  51. stpeter

    cf. Section 5.1 of XEP-0115

  52. stpeter

    e.g., "Sort the service discovery identities [15] by category and then by type and then by xml:lang (if it exists), formatted as CATEGORY '/' [TYPE] '/' [LANG] '/' [NAME]. [16] Note that each slash is included even if the LANG or NAME is not included (in accordance with XEP-0030, the category and type MUST be included)."

  53. stpeter

    So they have to be unique.

  54. stpeter

    m&m: right, "let's have a chat about this"

  55. stpeter

    shall we take it to the list?

  56. stpeter

    or is it already there? ;-)

  57. m&m

    the list discussion hasn't started yet

  58. stpeter

    see also https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/bf110edfccddf0c22089df2861e0231bdb05c3a2#diff-5313e01f95bfb0963280ca4dfb497800L275

  59. stpeter

    but this was in XEP-0115 earlier

  60. stpeter

    this looks like the kind of thing that someone asked me about and we clarified it in two places

  61. stpeter

    however, the constraint was already in XEP-0115 by then

  62. stpeter

    now I'd need to go through the history of XEP-0115 too

  63. stpeter

    probably not the best use of our time here :-)

  64. m&m

    probably not (-:

  65. stpeter

    shall we move along to things we can settle now?

  66. m&m


  67. Kev

    If this is already covered in the general lore by 115 and it was just missing from 30, let me know and I'll remove my -1. I was concerned that it might be adding in multi-lang without discussion.

  68. m&m

    I do recall this being discussed for 115

  69. stpeter

    BTW this xml:lang rule was not in version 1.4 of XEP-0115 and was added for version 1.5, published in February 2008

  70. stpeter

    so we can look at the discussion leading up to 1.5

  71. m&m

    anyway … let's move on

  72. stpeter

    of which there was much, I think - or at least lots of release candidate versions of 1.5 leading up to publication and approval in Feb 2008

  73. stpeter


  74. stpeter


  75. stpeter

    next conundrum? ;-)

  76. m&m

    we've got action we can take for 115, which is to get back to Kev on details, then decide what's next

  77. m&m


  78. m&m


  79. m&m

    I believe this just needs to be merged into the next release

  80. m&m

    nope, I need to reach out to Kev and MattJ about reviewing the latest changes

  81. m&m

    I'll send that note out shortly

  82. m&m


  83. m&m

    this is ready to take to council

  84. m&m

    in the past, this would have been an 1.yrcX interim release

  85. m&m

    well, tmp publish

  86. stpeter

    also BTW https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/6057a1fb42c18d1dddf07cdc0daa72696c327734#diff-5313e01f95bfb0963280ca4dfb497800 - that's where we made the change to 115

  87. m&m

    stpeter: you're having a tough time moving on today (-:

  88. stpeter

    m&m: agreed on #41

  89. stpeter

    I am - now I'm fascinating by what happened here :-)

  90. m&m

    I don't blame you … gone down a bunch of rabbit holes like this in the past myself

  91. Kev

    I've just been through (quickly) the 100ish post thread about 115. I'll remove my -1.

  92. m&m

    noted and thanks, Kev

  93. stpeter

    Kev: yeah lots of discussion in January 2008! http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2008-January/thread.html

  94. m&m

    for #41, I suggest we ask the council if they're good going to draft from the changelog

  95. stpeter moves on mentally :-)

  96. Kev

    Mail sent.

  97. m&m

    and render upon request

  98. m&m

    trying to avoid publish snafus

  99. stpeter

    on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/63 I asked Lance to make some fixes - I can ping him about that

  100. m&m


  101. m&m

    #82 is on hold, waiting on Mr. Wild

  102. m&m

    same with #83, actually (-:

  103. SamWhited

    #83 I need to sit down and rework; I just keep forgetting to do it.

  104. SamWhited

    Based on list feedback and discussion from last week.

  105. stpeter

    it's still on my list to go through XEP-0198 proposals but I haven't carved out the time yet

  106. m&m

    so #84 on hold pending author

  107. stpeter

    see above on needing to update a few Internet-Drafts :-)

  108. m&m


  109. stpeter

    also I'm way behind on a certain MUC/MIX discussion :-)

  110. Kev

    That one just needs you to say "Kev, make the changes" and watch while I fail to find time :)

  111. m&m

    I still haven't had time to read all of the changes to #91

  112. m&m

    failing to find time is a running theme

  113. stpeter

    always :-)

  114. Kev

    Yes, sorry.

  115. m&m

    we're all guilty

  116. stpeter

    Lance says he'll update XEP-215 per #63

  117. m&m


  118. Kev

    Unless we're desperately short of people I'll drop Council next year. Won't give me much extra time, but will cut back the amount of stuff I'm committing to and struggling with.

  119. stpeter

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/94 LGTM as I replied there

  120. stpeter

    Kev: yeah I might need to do some recruiting it seems

  121. stpeter

    I'm the only person who's put a hat into the ring for anything ;-)

  122. m&m

    stpeter: agreed, just needs some massaging to get its editorial version

  123. stpeter

    m&m ok good

  124. m&m

    #95 is pending a response from stpeter I think

  125. stpeter

    yeah I _just_ replied

  126. m&m

    looks like #96 is also ready for merging

  127. stpeter

    +1 on #96

  128. m&m

    I just took it over to track my failures (-:

  129. m&m

    #98 is just fixing examples, and stripping extraneous whitespace.

  130. m&m

    I think it's good to merge as an editorial revision

  131. stpeter


  132. m&m

    #100 needs some council discussion still, I think

  133. m&m

    need to make sure that makes it onto their next agenda

  134. SamWhited

    Can we go ahead and merge #99 so I can use it? It works fine (at least on Linux; might be able to install things with homebrew on macs). People can improve it later if they want to support their system more generically.

  135. m&m

    SamWhited: let me try it out … sorry, it kept slipping

  136. stpeter

    I think it would be good to have a discussion on the list about deprecating stream compression entirely given the attacks that exist - or at least have a discussion about whether those attacks apply to XMPP, because if they do then deprecating stream compression would seem to be the right thing to do.

  137. SamWhited

    m&m: Many thanks :)

  138. m&m

    stpeter: agreed

  139. stpeter

    or at least, "might" be the right thing to do

  140. m&m

    I'm not entirely sure these attacks are applicable to XMPP, given its stateful nature

  141. SamWhited has left

  142. m&m

    but the discussion is good to have

  143. SamWhited

    I know we did a big security analysis when we implemented it; pretty sure the answer ended up being "as long as there are flushes on stanza boundaries on both ends it will be okay", but I'll see if I can't get the official report or discussion. Might have good info, I dunno.

  144. SamWhited

    s/flsuhes/full flushes/

  145. m&m

    that would be great, Sam

  146. SamWhited goes to figure out who did that... it was shortly before I started here.

  147. stpeter


  148. stpeter

    thanks, Sam!

  149. m&m

    so, uh, #106 seems contested to me (-:

  150. stpeter

    106 or 104?

  151. m&m

    gah, yeah 104

  152. stpeter


  153. m&m

    I merged 0016 and 104 in an odd way

  154. SamWhited


  155. stpeter

    I haven't looked at #106 yet

  156. stpeter


  157. stpeter

    Sam suggested that I need to post in the privacy lists discussion

  158. SamWhited

    Please and thank you :)

  159. m&m

    so, #106 is still pending author?

  160. Kev

    I think I suggested that Sam suggested that ... :)

  161. SamWhited


  162. stpeter

    I haven't been closely tracking that thread, but given that I've been the one slowly pushing forward with alternatives (invisibility and blocking commands), I think it's safe to say that I am not a huge fan of privacy lists - and we developed privacy lists originally to address a requirement that we misunderstood from RFC 2779 way back in the early days of the XMPP WG!

  163. stpeter

    so I will post in that thread

  164. Kev

    (And so who really composed Beethoven's 5th?)

  165. Kev

    stpeter: I think that would be useful, thanks.

  166. stpeter


  167. m&m is updating his .todo .. un momento

  168. m&m


  169. m&m

    so, #104 is pending more list discussion

  170. m&m

    #106 is pending author action

  171. m&m

    #108 just needs to be mergec

  172. m&m

    merged even

  173. m&m

    (with an editorial revision)

  174. stpeter

    I need to depart for another meeting

  175. m&m

    I think we're done

  176. m&m


  177. m&m

    and congrats on yet-another-RFC (-:

  178. Kev

    Thanks to our diligent Editors ;)

  179. stpeter


  180. SamWhited has left

  181. SamWhited has left

  182. Kev has left

  183. Ash has left

  184. Flow has joined

  185. m&m has left

  186. m&m has joined

  187. stpeter has left

  188. stpeter has joined

  189. stpeter has left

  190. SamWhited has left

  191. Neustradamus has joined

  192. m&m has left

  193. Neustradamus has left

  194. m&m has joined

  195. SamWhited has left

  196. Ash has left

  197. Flow has left

  198. SamWhited has left

  199. stpeter has joined

  200. SamWhited has left

  201. SamWhited has left

  202. Ash has left

  203. m&m has left

  204. stpeter has left