-
weizfan
hi,guys
-
weizfan_1111
anybody here
-
weizfan_1111
oh,lazy guys
-
weizfan_1111
why not getting up
-
Alex
weizfan_1111: how can we help you?
-
weizfan_1111
i tired of silent
-
weizfan_1111
why not say something
-
Alex
join another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent
-
weizfan_1111
okay
-
weizfan_1111
Alex,can you recommend a c++ library for server?
-
Alex
jdev@conference.jabber.org is the venue to ask this question
-
Alex
its all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there
-
Ashley
hey all — is it board meeting time?
-
stpeter
yes
-
arcriley
With an audience no less
-
bear
the council meeting is still going, so we may have a couple of minutes before starting
-
stpeter
oh weird
-
stpeter
I don't see bear here
-
stpeter
might need to rejoin
-
arcriley
he's a moderator
-
Ashley
bear is in the list?
-
Ashley
s/?/.
-
stpeter
ah, that's better
-
stpeter
presence issues
-
stpeter
anyway, joined from another account
-
bear
swift has been going into a zombie mode when my laptop hibernates
-
Kev
It probably doesn't notice until TCP times out. We should fix that.
-
bear
Ashley, Arc and myself - present
-
bear
Florian?
-
bear
Jason?
-
Ashley
i see Florian in the room roster
-
stpeter
Jason didn't reply
- bear forgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum
- bear also cannot spell today
-
Florian
Hi all
-
stpeter
simple majority for a quorum
-
stpeter
hi Florian :-)
-
arcriley
well we certainly have quorum now
-
bear
4 out of 5 - let's call that a win and start
-
Ashley
drumroll
-
bear
remember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks
-
Ashley
was the primary agenda item engagement with that other standards body? iirc
-
bear
yes, that is the reason for today's meeting - for Peter to give us the info on what they want and what resources will be required
-
stpeter
right
-
stpeter
so, we received a "liaison request" from a technical committee at ISO
-
stpeter
TC 122, which does work on logistics and such
-
stpeter
it's sort-of "Internet of Things" related
-
stpeter
now, the ISO is a lot more formal than the XSF :-)
-
Florian
:)
-
stpeter
however, essentially they would like some folks to review their work on a usage of XMPP for notifications related to things like package delivery and vehicle tracking and such
-
stpeter
unfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions
-
stpeter
because of their access controls over things they are working on
-
stpeter
so they would like to establish a liaison relationship, which would enable us to assign a few people to participate in their work and sanity-check what they're developing before it gets released
-
bear
is the liason allowed to send the info to others for review?
-
stpeter
as I understand it, we would assign two or three people to review / participate
-
stpeter
there are a few questions that arise, of course
-
stpeter
e.g., how do we assign people (ask for volunteers among the membership)?
-
Peter Waher
(I can mention that myself and Joachim have worked with them for larger part of the year)
-
stpeter
since it's IoT-related, some people here might be interested
-
Peter Waher
(and that original participation request was sent on the IoT mailing list about a year ago)
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: ah, are you guys participating already through normal ISO processes?
-
Peter Waher
yes, through what is called IEEE/IEC/ISO P1451
-
Peter Waher
http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/InternetOfThings
-
Peter Waher
this is related
-
stpeter
another question is whether people we assign to be liaison experts are taken as speaking for the XSF, in which case we might want to have a consensus process for formulating our feedback
-
Peter Waher
they are various groups looking at similar thing
-
Peter Waher
s
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot
-
stpeter
how we handle these things on our side is up to us — e.g., we could assign just one person if we so please
-
Peter Waher
I'm president of a subgroup, relating to xml & xmpp telegrams
-
stpeter
or we could tell them that they already have some folks involved who know about XMPP and thus we don't see the need for a formal liaison relationship
-
Ashley
do we anticipate changes to XMPP itself, or simply new XEPs?
-
bear
that's why I was asking if the liason is allowed by the rules to pass on information for review
-
stpeter
Ashley: not changes to XMPP, and probably not any XEPs
-
Ashley
ok
-
Peter Waher
during the work we've done together, we've proposed XEP 0322-0326
-
stpeter
Peter Waher might know better, but I think they would write a document that says "here's how we're using XMPP for our use cases"
-
Peter Waher
This, they have done
-
stpeter
I see it as similar in some ways to what the OpenADR folks did with OpenADR 2.0
-
Peter Waher
and probably want us to double check
-
Ashley
right, make sense
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable
-
Florian
right
-
Peter Waher
they have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging
-
stpeter
e.g., I completed a review of the OpenADR 2.0 text about XMPP and suggested a few minor fixes, but mostly it seemed reasonable and I told them so
-
Peter Waher
so they probably want a third party to double check before publishing the standard
-
stpeter
yes
-
stpeter
thus one question is, do we see the need for a liaison relationship?
-
stpeter
if the Board would like, I'd be happy to be a liaison just to do what Peter suggests about reviewing what they come up with
-
stpeter
unlike OpenADR, ISO is more formal and thus requires a bit more process
-
Dave Cridland
A formal liason relationship would lend us some legitimacy, I'd imagine.
-
Ashley
that seems like a good way to go
-
Florian
I'd say: why not... don't really see any downsides here
-
stpeter
Dave: right
-
Dave Cridland
Which obviously costs us in terms of effort.
-
Florian
Dave Cridland: right
-
arcriley
stpeter are you volunteering?
-
stpeter
it helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)
-
stpeter
arcriley: yes, I'd volunteer to be a liaison since all it really means is I review yet another standards spec in my life :-)
-
Ashley
i look at it like building our ecosystem
-
Florian2
Yeah
-
Peter Waher
it would be great to build a broader concensus behind any IoT solutions the XSF proposes
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: agreed
-
Peter Waher
and spread knowledge of the area
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: unfortunately we don't have a lot of participants who know that space very well
-
stpeter
but that's a separate issue :-)
-
Peter Waher
I'm available for any comments, questions or doubts you may have
-
Peter Waher
And I'm sure Joachim is as well
-
Kev
Presumably that's what they're discussing, though, and what *we're* needed for is the XMPP side
-
stpeter
yes
-
Kev
and we do have some amount of knowledge about XMPP :)
-
Dave Cridland
I'd personally suggest that Peter Waher, if he's willing, be the actual liason, and have the review done by a smallish team (and/or the Council)
-
stpeter
it seems to me that they want a sanity check
-
Kev
In which case we'd probably want to pick someone well versed in the XMPP side of things.
-
Kev
(e.g. stpeter)
-
Florian2
Yeah
-
stpeter
Dave: well, Peter and Joachim already participating, it seems
-
stpeter
^ + are
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?
-
Peter Waher
I can be the liason, but for them to be satisfied, it would be excellent if stpeter or the council could approve by double checking any recommendations
-
stpeter
heck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on
-
Peter Waher
yes
-
Dave Cridland
Right, but I'd expect the liason to be in the awkward position of acting as translator more than anything else.
-
stpeter
Dave: translator how?
-
Dave Cridland
Translating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)
-
Peter Waher
It should be remembered that this request is probably originating in the desire to double check what has been proposed by myself and Joachim
-
Peter Waher
in a more formal manner
-
Dave Cridland
Ah. That might be awkward. :-)
-
Florian2
Ah, right
-
Peter Waher
so, If somebody well established in the XMPP community (i.e. stpeter) or the entire XFS council would review any suggestions, it would address their concerns
-
Dave Cridland
"Yes, we'll check Peter Waher's work. We suggest Peter Waher should check it."
-
stpeter
hehehe
-
Peter Waher
:)
-
Florian2
:)
-
Florian2
Would anyone from the council be interested?
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: it might not be that they have any concerns with the feedback you've provided, but they don't know XMPP and they want to be Sure™
-
Florian2
Alongside stpeter
-
stpeter
this is my sense of things, anyway
-
Peter Waher
I believe so too
-
Peter Waher
however, there
-
Peter Waher
's one item of concern
-
Kev
Florian2: I guess I could.
-
Florian2
Actually, we may not even need 2 people from the XSF
-
Peter Waher
and that's legacy binary encodings
-
stpeter
hey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P
-
Peter Waher
And I've been quite stubborn in explaining why it's not a good idea to continue down that road
-
Florian2
stpeter: lol
-
Peter Waher
for interoperability's sake
- stpeter nods
-
Peter Waher
I've proposed the use of bits of binary, for instance, but it would create a solution nobody would be interested in
-
stpeter
but it's not really for us to tell them what bindings they need to support, right?
-
Peter Waher
exactly
-
Peter Waher
i've tries to explain pros and cons for different solutions
-
Peter Waher
and what I personally believe is the correct solution
-
Peter Waher
now, there are 3 proposed solutions
-
stpeter
it seems that their decisions about old binary vs. new XML (aka "legacy JSON") are something that's up to them
-
Peter Waher
1) The XEPS 0322-0326
-
Peter Waher
2) Bits of binary (not recommended)
-
stpeter
(although we might suggest that they might not want to send their binary encoding over XMPP because it makes more sense to send the XML representation)
-
Peter Waher
3) a combination, where they use telegrams in (1), but encode binary field names using some kind of urn scheme
-
stpeter
ah
-
stpeter
well, this is something to work out in conversation with them
-
Peter Waher
I guess, if somebody could validate the pros and cons, they could feel safer taking a decision
-
stpeter
I'd prefer not to talk about the specifics much here because it's their IPR and their processes aren't all that open
-
Peter Waher
(y)
-
stpeter
(which itself raises an issue about broader review)
-
Peter Waher
They've sent us all documents, but we cannot forward them
-
Peter Waher
But they have no problems sending them to any participants
-
arcriley
so... the liason cannot forward them to the council for review?
-
stpeter
but if we can assign a few people or just me or whoever to advise them, then personally I don't see the need to open up the review to all XSF members or whatever (although perhaps we'd see advice from the Council somehow if we see the need)
-
stpeter
arcriley: good question
-
stpeter
arcriley: I just thought about that 10 minutes ago and I do not know the answer, but I can find out
-
Peter Waher
we've been clear on that point too: Any XEPs or documents leaving the XSF will be in the public domain
-
arcriley
if thats the case why don't we just appoint the entire council - that way they can discuss and review while still complying with their closed process
-
Peter Waher
They have discussed the possibility in publishing the documents in an open forum too...
-
Dave Cridland
Council discussions are (or have been, historically) public.
-
stpeter
arcriley: that's a possibility, although Council membership changes and as I understand it they'd want people to be appointed as individuals
-
Peter Waher
but today, the documents are still not public. Only they can send them to any participants
-
Dave Cridland
While it's within the Board's remit, I suspect, to propose the Council could hold those in camera, I'm not sure it's a precedent I'd like the Board to be setting.
-
stpeter
right
-
Peter Waher
I've been very consistent regarding openness
-
arcriley
ISO has got to have some precident in working with organizations like ours
-
Florian2
Yeah
-
Peter Waher
They know it and respect it
-
Peter Waher
So I believe we can push that point
-
bear
this would have to be not a Council issue, even if all of the Council are part of the liason team
-
stpeter
well, the easiest thing is to appoint one or two people as individuals and not say that the XMPP Council will be reviewing things as a body
-
bear
that's what I was trying to say
-
stpeter
because I agree with Dave about not wanting to set precedents about working in huggermugger
-
stpeter
or in camera or whatever :P
-
Ashley
hey guys — i have to jump to another meeting
-
Dave Cridland
stpeter, "in camera" - s'latin, innit?
-
bear
Ashley - are you +1 on liason in general
-
Ashley
yes!
-
bear
k, more details to follow on the list, thanks for attending while you could
-
arcriley
it sounds like there's some questions to be determined before we can really move forward in a meaningful way though
-
bear
it sounds like we can respond "yes, but we have some followup questions"
-
arcriley
yup yup
-
stpeter
that seems reasonable
-
stpeter
"yes in principle"
-
Florian2
Yup, sounds good
-
stpeter
so shall I work with the Board on a suitable reply and some follow-up questions?
-
bear
+1
-
stpeter
ok
-
arcriley
+1
-
stpeter
happy to have that discussion on the members@ list for transparency
-
Florian2
+1
-
stpeter
transparency is good
-
bear
members@ works for this - will get more folks involved
-
Peter Waher
I would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence
-
Florian2
bear: yeah
-
Peter Waher
feels awkward having to ask them what XSF sent to them, when being part of XSF and their working groups
-
arcriley
lol
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: if we discuss it on the members@ list, what we'll send will be in the open anyway :-)
-
bear
i'm all for peter cc'ing the members list in all mailings TBH
-
Peter Waher
(y)
-
Florian2
bear: +1
-
stpeter
super
-
bear
should we meet again in a week to followup or will you need more time?
-
stpeter
that should be fine — I think we can work things out on the members@ list
-
stpeter
before then
-
stpeter
but scheduling a follow-up seems fine
-
bear
k, i'll email the list about a meeting next week
-
Florian2
bear: great
-
bear
peter - do we have more to discuss and do you have the needed information?
-
stpeter
I have what I need and I don't personally have any other business, but we might want to ask if anyone else does :-)
-
bear
:)
-
bear
anything else to discuss/add ?
-
Florian2
Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good
-
stpeter
BTW, thanks to everyone for the input and questions about our topic of interest, that was all good feedback
-
stpeter
I'm working out final details on a place to meet in Portland for the next Summit
-
stpeter
so that should be nailed down very soon (this week)
-
bear
the summit in portland should be very active
-
stpeter
yes, lots of security topics of interest these days
-
Florian2
:)
- bear waits a couple more minutes before making the call to close the meeting
-
bear
k, I think we can call today's meeting done then
-
Florian2
Alrighty :)
-
bear
thanks all for attending and thank you Peter for the work on this issue
-
Florian2
Thanks all
-
Florian2
See you next week
-
bear
i'll do the minutes email after I get done yelling at some servers
-
stpeter
great, I'll add the meeting to the calendar this time
-
Peter Waher
thanks, bye
-
stpeter
thanks Peter
-
stpeter
time to head to the office, bbiab