XSF Discussion - 2013-09-18

  1. Lance has left

  2. Lance has joined

  3. Lance has left

  4. Lance has joined

  5. Lance has left

  6. Lance has joined

  7. stpeter has joined

  8. stpeter has left

  9. stpeter has joined

  10. Lance has joined

  11. stpeter has left

  12. stpeter has joined

  13. stpeter has left

  14. stpeter has joined

  15. stpeter has left

  16. intosi@ik.nu has left

  17. intosi@ik.nu has joined

  18. intosi@ik.nu has left

  19. intosi@ik.nu has joined

  20. bear has left

  21. Lloyd has joined

  22. Alex has joined

  23. Alex has left

  24. Alex has joined

  25. ralphm has left

  26. weizfan has joined

  27. weizfan


  28. weizfan_1111 has joined

  29. weizfan_1111

    anybody here

  30. weizfan_1111

    oh,lazy guys

  31. weizfan_1111

    why not getting up

  32. Alex

    weizfan_1111: how can we help you?

  33. weizfan_1111

    i tired of silent

  34. weizfan_1111

    why not say something

  35. Alex

    join another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent

  36. weizfan_1111


  37. intosi@ik.nu has left

  38. intosi@ik.nu has joined

  39. weizfan_1111

    Alex,can you recommend a c++ library for server?

  40. Alex

    jdev@conference.jabber.org is the venue to ask this question

  41. Alex

    its all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there

  42. weizfan_1111 has left

  43. Lloyd has left

  44. Lloyd has joined

  45. Alex has left

  46. stpeter has joined

  47. Lloyd has joined

  48. stpeter has left

  49. stpeter has joined

  50. stpeter has left

  51. stpeter has joined

  52. stpeter has left

  53. Lloyd has joined

  54. stpeter has joined

  55. stpeter has left

  56. stpeter has joined

  57. MattJ has left

  58. bear has joined

  59. Peter Waher has joined

  60. Alex has left

  61. MattJ has joined

  62. Florian has joined

  63. Ashley has joined

  64. Lance has joined

  65. arcriley has joined

  66. Ashley

    hey all — is it board meeting time?

  67. stpeter


  68. fippo has joined

  69. arcriley

    With an audience no less

  70. bear

    the council meeting is still going, so we may have a couple of minutes before starting

  71. stpeter

    oh weird

  72. stpeter

    I don't see bear here

  73. stpeter

    might need to rejoin

  74. Tobias has joined

  75. stpeter has left

  76. arcriley

    he's a moderator

  77. Ashley

    bear is in the list?

  78. Ashley


  79. stpeter has joined

  80. stpeter

    ah, that's better

  81. stpeter

    presence issues

  82. stpeter

    anyway, joined from another account

  83. bear

    swift has been going into a zombie mode when my laptop hibernates

  84. Kev

    It probably doesn't notice until TCP times out. We should fix that.

  85. bear

    Ashley, Arc and myself - present

  86. bear


  87. bear


  88. Ashley

    i see Florian in the room roster

  89. stpeter

    Jason didn't reply

  90. bear forgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum

  91. m&m has joined

  92. bear also cannot spell today

  93. Florian

    Hi all

  94. stpeter

    simple majority for a quorum

  95. stpeter

    hi Florian :-)

  96. arcriley

    well we certainly have quorum now

  97. bear

    4 out of 5 - let's call that a win and start

  98. Ashley


  99. bear

    remember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks

  100. Ashley

    was the primary agenda item engagement with that other standards body? iirc

  101. 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

  102. stpeter


  103. stpeter

    so, we received a "liaison request" from a technical committee at ISO

  104. stpeter

    TC 122, which does work on logistics and such

  105. stpeter

    it's sort-of "Internet of Things" related

  106. stpeter

    now, the ISO is a lot more formal than the XSF :-)

  107. Florian


  108. 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

  109. stpeter

    unfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions

  110. stpeter

    because of their access controls over things they are working on

  111. 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

  112. bear

    is the liason allowed to send the info to others for review?

  113. stpeter

    as I understand it, we would assign two or three people to review / participate

  114. stpeter

    there are a few questions that arise, of course

  115. stpeter

    e.g., how do we assign people (ask for volunteers among the membership)?

  116. Dave Cridland has joined

  117. Peter Waher

    (I can mention that myself and Joachim have worked with them for larger part of the year)

  118. stpeter

    since it's IoT-related, some people here might be interested

  119. Peter Waher

    (and that original participation request was sent on the IoT mailing list about a year ago)

  120. stpeter

    Peter Waher: ah, are you guys participating already through normal ISO processes?

  121. Peter Waher

    yes, through what is called IEEE/IEC/ISO P1451

  122. Peter Waher


  123. Peter Waher

    this is related

  124. 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

  125. Peter Waher

    they are various groups looking at similar thing

  126. Peter Waher


  127. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot

  128. 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

  129. Peter Waher

    I'm president of a subgroup, relating to xml & xmpp telegrams

  130. 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

  131. Ashley

    do we anticipate changes to XMPP itself, or simply new XEPs?

  132. bear

    that's why I was asking if the liason is allowed by the rules to pass on information for review

  133. stpeter

    Ashley: not changes to XMPP, and probably not any XEPs

  134. Ashley


  135. Peter Waher

    during the work we've done together, we've proposed XEP 0322-0326

  136. 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"

  137. Peter Waher

    This, they have done

  138. stpeter

    I see it as similar in some ways to what the OpenADR folks did with OpenADR 2.0

  139. Peter Waher

    and probably want us to double check

  140. Ashley

    right, make sense

  141. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable

  142. Florian


  143. Peter Waher

    they have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging

  144. 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

  145. Peter Waher

    so they probably want a third party to double check before publishing the standard

  146. stpeter


  147. stpeter

    thus one question is, do we see the need for a liaison relationship?

  148. 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

  149. stpeter

    unlike OpenADR, ISO is more formal and thus requires a bit more process

  150. Dave Cridland

    A formal liason relationship would lend us some legitimacy, I'd imagine.

  151. Ashley

    that seems like a good way to go

  152. Florian

    I'd say: why not... don't really see any downsides here

  153. stpeter

    Dave: right

  154. Dave Cridland

    Which obviously costs us in terms of effort.

  155. Florian

    Dave Cridland: right

  156. arcriley

    stpeter are you volunteering?

  157. stpeter

    it helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)

  158. 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 :-)

  159. Ashley

    i look at it like building our ecosystem

  160. Florian2 has joined

  161. Florian2


  162. Florian has left

  163. Peter Waher

    it would be great to build a broader concensus behind any IoT solutions the XSF proposes

  164. stpeter

    Peter Waher: agreed

  165. Peter Waher

    and spread knowledge of the area

  166. stpeter

    Peter Waher: unfortunately we don't have a lot of participants who know that space very well

  167. stpeter

    but that's a separate issue :-)

  168. Peter Waher

    I'm available for any comments, questions or doubts you may have

  169. Peter Waher

    And I'm sure Joachim is as well

  170. Kev

    Presumably that's what they're discussing, though, and what *we're* needed for is the XMPP side

  171. stpeter


  172. Kev

    and we do have some amount of knowledge about XMPP :)

  173. 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)

  174. stpeter

    it seems to me that they want a sanity check

  175. Kev

    In which case we'd probably want to pick someone well versed in the XMPP side of things.

  176. Kev

    (e.g. stpeter)

  177. Florian2


  178. stpeter

    Dave: well, Peter and Joachim already participating, it seems

  179. stpeter

    ^ + are

  180. stpeter

    Peter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?

  181. 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

  182. stpeter

    heck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on

  183. Peter Waher


  184. Dave Cridland

    Right, but I'd expect the liason to be in the awkward position of acting as translator more than anything else.

  185. stpeter

    Dave: translator how?

  186. Dave Cridland

    Translating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)

  187. 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

  188. Peter Waher

    in a more formal manner

  189. Dave Cridland

    Ah. That might be awkward. :-)

  190. Florian2

    Ah, right

  191. 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

  192. Dave Cridland

    "Yes, we'll check Peter Waher's work. We suggest Peter Waher should check it."

  193. stpeter


  194. Peter Waher


  195. Florian2


  196. Florian2

    Would anyone from the council be interested?

  197. 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™

  198. Alex has joined

  199. Florian2

    Alongside stpeter

  200. stpeter

    this is my sense of things, anyway

  201. Peter Waher

    I believe so too

  202. Peter Waher

    however, there

  203. Peter Waher

    's one item of concern

  204. Kev

    Florian2: I guess I could.

  205. Florian2

    Actually, we may not even need 2 people from the XSF

  206. Peter Waher

    and that's legacy binary encodings

  207. stpeter

    hey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P

  208. Peter Waher

    And I've been quite stubborn in explaining why it's not a good idea to continue down that road

  209. Florian2

    stpeter: lol

  210. Peter Waher

    for interoperability's sake

  211. stpeter nods

  212. Peter Waher

    I've proposed the use of bits of binary, for instance, but it would create a solution nobody would be interested in

  213. stpeter

    but it's not really for us to tell them what bindings they need to support, right?

  214. Peter Waher


  215. Peter Waher

    i've tries to explain pros and cons for different solutions

  216. Peter Waher

    and what I personally believe is the correct solution

  217. Peter Waher

    now, there are 3 proposed solutions

  218. stpeter

    it seems that their decisions about old binary vs. new XML (aka "legacy JSON") are something that's up to them

  219. Peter Waher

    1) The XEPS 0322-0326

  220. Peter Waher

    2) Bits of binary (not recommended)

  221. 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)

  222. Peter Waher

    3) a combination, where they use telegrams in (1), but encode binary field names using some kind of urn scheme

  223. stpeter


  224. stpeter

    well, this is something to work out in conversation with them

  225. Peter Waher

    I guess, if somebody could validate the pros and cons, they could feel safer taking a decision

  226. 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

  227. Peter Waher


  228. stpeter

    (which itself raises an issue about broader review)

  229. Peter Waher

    They've sent us all documents, but we cannot forward them

  230. Peter Waher

    But they have no problems sending them to any participants

  231. arcriley

    so... the liason cannot forward them to the council for review?

  232. 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)

  233. stpeter

    arcriley: good question

  234. stpeter

    arcriley: I just thought about that 10 minutes ago and I do not know the answer, but I can find out

  235. Peter Waher

    we've been clear on that point too: Any XEPs or documents leaving the XSF will be in the public domain

  236. 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

  237. Peter Waher

    They have discussed the possibility in publishing the documents in an open forum too...

  238. Dave Cridland

    Council discussions are (or have been, historically) public.

  239. stpeter

    arcriley: that's a possibility, although Council membership changes and as I understand it they'd want people to be appointed as individuals

  240. Peter Waher

    but today, the documents are still not public. Only they can send them to any participants

  241. 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.

  242. stpeter


  243. Peter Waher

    I've been very consistent regarding openness

  244. arcriley

    ISO has got to have some precident in working with organizations like ours

  245. Florian2


  246. Peter Waher

    They know it and respect it

  247. Peter Waher

    So I believe we can push that point

  248. bear

    this would have to be not a Council issue, even if all of the Council are part of the liason team

  249. 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

  250. bear

    that's what I was trying to say

  251. stpeter

    because I agree with Dave about not wanting to set precedents about working in huggermugger

  252. stpeter

    or in camera or whatever :P

  253. Ashley

    hey guys — i have to jump to another meeting

  254. Dave Cridland

    stpeter, "in camera" - s'latin, innit?

  255. bear

    Ashley - are you +1 on liason in general

  256. Ashley


  257. bear

    k, more details to follow on the list, thanks for attending while you could

  258. arcriley

    it sounds like there's some questions to be determined before we can really move forward in a meaningful way though

  259. bear

    it sounds like we can respond "yes, but we have some followup questions"

  260. arcriley

    yup yup

  261. stpeter

    that seems reasonable

  262. stpeter

    "yes in principle"

  263. Florian2

    Yup, sounds good

  264. stpeter

    so shall I work with the Board on a suitable reply and some follow-up questions?

  265. bear


  266. stpeter


  267. arcriley


  268. stpeter

    happy to have that discussion on the members@ list for transparency

  269. Florian2


  270. stpeter

    transparency is good

  271. bear

    members@ works for this - will get more folks involved

  272. Peter Waher

    I would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence

  273. Florian2

    bear: yeah

  274. Peter Waher

    feels awkward having to ask them what XSF sent to them, when being part of XSF and their working groups

  275. arcriley


  276. stpeter

    Peter Waher: if we discuss it on the members@ list, what we'll send will be in the open anyway :-)

  277. bear

    i'm all for peter cc'ing the members list in all mailings TBH

  278. Peter Waher


  279. Florian2

    bear: +1

  280. stpeter


  281. bear

    should we meet again in a week to followup or will you need more time?

  282. stpeter

    that should be fine — I think we can work things out on the members@ list

  283. stpeter

    before then

  284. stpeter

    but scheduling a follow-up seems fine

  285. bear

    k, i'll email the list about a meeting next week

  286. Florian2

    bear: great

  287. bear

    peter - do we have more to discuss and do you have the needed information?

  288. 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 :-)

  289. bear


  290. bear

    anything else to discuss/add ?

  291. Florian2

    Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good

  292. stpeter

    BTW, thanks to everyone for the input and questions about our topic of interest, that was all good feedback

  293. stpeter

    I'm working out final details on a place to meet in Portland for the next Summit

  294. stpeter

    so that should be nailed down very soon (this week)

  295. bear

    the summit in portland should be very active

  296. stpeter

    yes, lots of security topics of interest these days

  297. Florian2


  298. bear waits a couple more minutes before making the call to close the meeting

  299. bear

    k, I think we can call today's meeting done then

  300. Florian2

    Alrighty :)

  301. bear

    thanks all for attending and thank you Peter for the work on this issue

  302. Florian2

    Thanks all

  303. Florian2

    See you next week

  304. bear

    i'll do the minutes email after I get done yelling at some servers

  305. stpeter

    great, I'll add the meeting to the calendar this time

  306. Peter Waher

    thanks, bye

  307. stpeter

    thanks Peter

  308. Florian2 has left

  309. Peter Waher has left

  310. stpeter

    time to head to the office, bbiab

  311. stpeter has left

  312. Dave Cridland has left

  313. fsteinel has joined

  314. fippo has left

  315. Tobias has joined

  316. Lance has joined

  317. m&m has left

  318. Lloyd has left

  319. fsteinel has left

  320. Ashley has left

  321. stpeter has joined

  322. stpeter has left

  323. stpeter has joined

  324. stpeter has left

  325. Tobias has left

  326. Ashley has joined

  327. fsteinel has joined

  328. fsteinel has left

  329. Lance has left

  330. Alex has left

  331. stpeter has joined

  332. Ashley has left

  333. Ashley has joined

  334. Ashley has left

  335. Ashley has joined

  336. Ashley has left

  337. Lance has joined

  338. stpeter has left