XSF Discussion - 2013-09-18

00:04:42 Lance has left
00:04:46 Lance has joined
00:07:34 Lance has left
00:07:38 Lance has joined
00:13:50 Lance has left
00:28:46 Lance has joined
00:50:32 stpeter has joined
00:53:18 stpeter has left
01:23:36 stpeter has joined
01:25:12 Lance has joined
02:03:29 stpeter has left
02:36:33 stpeter has joined
02:36:34 stpeter has left
02:36:34 stpeter has joined
02:55:46 stpeter has left
03:45:04 intosi@ik.nu has left
03:45:04 intosi@ik.nu has joined
06:14:58 intosi@ik.nu has left
06:32:20 intosi@ik.nu has joined
06:47:59 bear has left
07:30:07 Lloyd has joined
07:31:18 Alex has joined
07:32:28 Alex has left
07:43:38 Alex has joined
08:01:40 ralphm has left
08:08:53 weizfan has joined
08:11:54 weizfan hi,guys
08:13:03 weizfan_1111 has joined
08:49:36 weizfan_1111 anybody here
08:51:18 weizfan_1111 oh,lazy guys
08:51:35 weizfan_1111 why not getting up
09:01:57 Alex weizfan_1111: how can we help you?
09:03:11 weizfan_1111 i tired of silent
09:03:54 weizfan_1111 why not say something
09:03:57 Alex join another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent
09:04:35 weizfan_1111 okay
09:12:17 intosi@ik.nu has left
09:12:47 intosi@ik.nu has joined
09:19:20 weizfan_1111 Alex,can you recommend a c++ library for server?
09:20:22 Alex jdev@conference.jabber.org is the venue to ask this question
09:20:42 Alex its all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there
09:29:25 weizfan_1111 has left
09:32:36 Lloyd has left
09:33:04 Lloyd has joined
09:40:30 Alex has left
12:29:26 stpeter has joined
12:29:26 Lloyd has joined
12:29:28 stpeter has left
12:29:28 stpeter has joined
12:29:39 stpeter has left
12:59:12 stpeter has joined
12:59:12 stpeter has left
13:20:44 Lloyd has joined
13:59:30 stpeter has joined
13:59:40 stpeter has left
13:59:40 stpeter has joined
14:11:24 MattJ has left
14:15:35 bear has joined
14:19:27 Peter Waher has joined
14:34:21 Alex has left
14:58:09 MattJ has joined
15:04:34 Florian has joined
15:09:40 Ashley has joined
15:11:19 Lance has joined
15:30:45 arcriley has joined
15:32:26 Ashley hey all — is it board meeting time?
15:32:49 stpeter yes
15:33:16 fippo has joined
15:33:30 arcriley With an audience no less
15:33:31 bear the council meeting is still going, so we may have a couple of minutes before starting
15:33:37 stpeter oh weird
15:33:43 stpeter I don't see bear here
15:33:47 stpeter might need to rejoin
15:33:48 Tobias has joined
15:33:51 stpeter has left
15:33:51 arcriley he's a moderator
15:33:52 Ashley bear is in the list?
15:34:05 Ashley s/?/.
15:34:43 stpeter has joined
15:35:01 stpeter ah, that's better
15:35:06 stpeter presence issues
15:35:22 stpeter anyway, joined from another account
15:35:35 bear swift has been going into a zombie mode when my laptop hibernates
15:36:07 Kev It probably doesn't notice until TCP times out. We should fix that.
15:37:05 bear Ashley, Arc and myself - present
15:37:16 bear Florian?
15:37:29 bear Jason?
15:37:59 Ashley i see Florian in the room roster
15:38:01 stpeter Jason didn't reply
15:39:26 bear forgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum
15:39:28 m&m has joined
15:39:33 bear also cannot spell today
15:39:43 Florian Hi all
15:39:44 stpeter simple majority for a quorum
15:39:54 stpeter hi Florian :-)
15:40:05 arcriley well we certainly have quorum now
15:40:10 bear 4 out of 5 - let's call that a win and start
15:40:27 Ashley drumroll
15:41:06 bear remember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks
15:41:10 Ashley was the primary agenda item engagement with that other standards body? iirc
15:41:39 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
15:41:50 stpeter right
15:42:08 stpeter so, we received a "liaison request" from a technical committee at ISO
15:42:16 stpeter TC 122, which does work on logistics and such
15:42:29 stpeter it's sort-of "Internet of Things" related
15:42:43 stpeter now, the ISO is a lot more formal than the XSF :-)
15:43:26 Florian :)
15:43:29 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
15:43:53 stpeter unfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions
15:44:08 stpeter because of their access controls over things they are working on
15:44:53 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
15:45:17 bear is the liason allowed to send the info to others for review?
15:45:34 stpeter as I understand it, we would assign two or three people to review / participate
15:45:41 stpeter there are a few questions that arise, of course
15:45:56 stpeter e.g., how do we assign people (ask for volunteers among the membership)?
15:46:05 Dave Cridland has joined
15:46:09 Peter Waher (I can mention that myself and Joachim have worked with them for larger part of the year)
15:46:16 stpeter since it's IoT-related, some people here might be interested
15:46:26 Peter Waher (and that original participation request was sent on the IoT mailing list about a year ago)
15:46:42 stpeter Peter Waher: ah, are you guys participating already through normal ISO processes?
15:47:32 Peter Waher yes, through what is called IEEE/IEC/ISO P1451
15:47:39 Peter Waher http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/InternetOfThings
15:47:42 Peter Waher this is related
15:47:50 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
15:47:55 Peter Waher they are various groups looking at similar thing
15:47:55 Peter Waher s
15:48:06 stpeter Peter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot
15:48:33 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
15:48:51 Peter Waher I'm president of a subgroup, relating to xml & xmpp telegrams
15:49:08 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
15:49:08 Ashley do we anticipate changes to XMPP itself, or simply new XEPs?
15:49:17 bear that's why I was asking if the liason is allowed by the rules to pass on information for review
15:49:25 stpeter Ashley: not changes to XMPP, and probably not any XEPs
15:49:34 Ashley ok
15:49:50 Peter Waher during the work we've done together, we've proposed XEP 0322-0326
15:49:57 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"
15:50:09 Peter Waher This, they have done
15:50:15 stpeter I see it as similar in some ways to what the OpenADR folks did with OpenADR 2.0
15:50:16 Peter Waher and probably want us to double check
15:50:18 Ashley right, make sense
15:50:30 stpeter Peter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable
15:50:36 Florian right
15:50:39 Peter Waher they have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging
15:50:59 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
15:51:00 Peter Waher so they probably want a third party to double check before publishing the standard
15:51:09 stpeter yes
15:52:15 stpeter thus one question is, do we see the need for a liaison relationship?
15:52:40 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
15:52:58 stpeter unlike OpenADR, ISO is more formal and thus requires a bit more process
15:53:05 Dave Cridland A formal liason relationship would lend us some legitimacy, I'd imagine.
15:53:09 Ashley that seems like a good way to go
15:53:09 Florian I'd say: why not... don't really see any downsides here
15:53:12 stpeter Dave: right
15:53:14 Dave Cridland Which obviously costs us in terms of effort.
15:53:16 Florian Dave Cridland: right
15:53:21 arcriley stpeter are you volunteering?
15:53:30 stpeter it helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)
15:54:00 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 :-)
15:54:10 Ashley i look at it like building our ecosystem
15:54:13 Florian2 has joined
15:54:28 Florian2 Yeah
15:54:40 Florian has left
15:54:41 Peter Waher it would be great to build a broader concensus behind any IoT solutions the XSF proposes
15:54:50 stpeter Peter Waher: agreed
15:54:53 Peter Waher and spread knowledge of the area
15:55:08 stpeter Peter Waher: unfortunately we don't have a lot of participants who know that space very well
15:55:14 stpeter but that's a separate issue :-)
15:55:30 Peter Waher I'm available for any comments, questions or doubts you may have
15:55:37 Peter Waher And I'm sure Joachim is as well
15:55:42 Kev Presumably that's what they're discussing, though, and what *we're* needed for is the XMPP side
15:55:47 stpeter yes
15:55:50 Kev and we do have some amount of knowledge about XMPP :)
15:55:51 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)
15:55:57 stpeter it seems to me that they want a sanity check
15:56:12 Kev In which case we'd probably want to pick someone well versed in the XMPP side of things.
15:56:23 Kev (e.g. stpeter)
15:56:32 Florian2 Yeah
15:56:45 stpeter Dave: well, Peter and Joachim already participating, it seems
15:56:53 stpeter ^ + are
15:57:15 stpeter Peter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?
15:57:26 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
15:57:27 stpeter heck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on
15:57:28 Peter Waher yes
15:57:37 Dave Cridland Right, but I'd expect the liason to be in the awkward position of acting as translator more than anything else.
15:57:55 stpeter Dave: translator how?
15:58:05 Dave Cridland Translating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)
15:58:18 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
15:58:26 Peter Waher in a more formal manner
15:58:43 Dave Cridland Ah. That might be awkward. :-)
15:59:08 Florian2 Ah, right
15:59:15 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
15:59:15 Dave Cridland "Yes, we'll check Peter Waher's work. We suggest Peter Waher should check it."
15:59:22 stpeter hehehe
15:59:24 Peter Waher :)
15:59:32 Florian2 :)
15:59:49 Florian2 Would anyone from the council be interested?
16:00:06 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™
16:00:06 Alex has joined
16:00:07 Florian2 Alongside stpeter
16:00:27 stpeter this is my sense of things, anyway
16:00:39 Peter Waher I believe so too
16:00:42 Peter Waher however, there
16:00:48 Peter Waher 's one item of concern
16:00:51 Kev Florian2: I guess I could.
16:00:52 Florian2 Actually, we may not even need 2 people from the XSF
16:00:57 Peter Waher and that's legacy binary encodings
16:01:10 stpeter hey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P
16:01:24 Peter Waher And I've been quite stubborn in explaining why it's not a good idea to continue down that road
16:01:32 Florian2 stpeter: lol
16:01:32 Peter Waher for interoperability's sake
16:01:45 stpeter nods
16:02:03 Peter Waher I've proposed the use of bits of binary, for instance, but it would create a solution nobody would be interested in
16:02:05 stpeter but it's not really for us to tell them what bindings they need to support, right?
16:02:11 Peter Waher exactly
16:02:20 Peter Waher i've tries to explain pros and cons for different solutions
16:02:29 Peter Waher and what I personally believe is the correct solution
16:02:43 Peter Waher now, there are 3 proposed solutions
16:02:51 stpeter it seems that their decisions about old binary vs. new XML (aka "legacy JSON") are something that's up to them
16:02:59 Peter Waher 1) The XEPS 0322-0326
16:03:11 Peter Waher 2) Bits of binary (not recommended)
16:03:33 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)
16:03:35 Peter Waher 3) a combination, where they use telegrams in (1), but encode binary field names using some kind of urn scheme
16:03:56 stpeter ah
16:04:05 stpeter well, this is something to work out in conversation with them
16:04:13 Peter Waher I guess, if somebody could validate the pros and cons, they could feel safer taking a decision
16:04:25 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
16:04:41 Peter Waher (y)
16:04:54 stpeter (which itself raises an issue about broader review)
16:05:08 Peter Waher They've sent us all documents, but we cannot forward them
16:05:20 Peter Waher But they have no problems sending them to any participants
16:05:42 arcriley so... the liason cannot forward them to the council for review?
16:05:47 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)
16:05:55 stpeter arcriley: good question
16:06:18 stpeter arcriley: I just thought about that 10 minutes ago and I do not know the answer, but I can find out
16:06:19 Peter Waher we've been clear on that point too: Any XEPs or documents leaving the XSF will be in the public domain
16:06:36 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
16:06:45 Peter Waher They have discussed the possibility in publishing the documents in an open forum too...
16:06:56 Dave Cridland Council discussions are (or have been, historically) public.
16:07:27 stpeter arcriley: that's a possibility, although Council membership changes and as I understand it they'd want people to be appointed as individuals
16:07:28 Peter Waher but today, the documents are still not public. Only they can send them to any participants
16:07:48 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.
16:08:17 stpeter right
16:08:20 Peter Waher I've been very consistent regarding openness
16:08:22 arcriley ISO has got to have some precident in working with organizations like ours
16:08:22 Florian2 Yeah
16:08:26 Peter Waher They know it and respect it
16:08:33 Peter Waher So I believe we can push that point
16:08:38 bear this would have to be not a Council issue, even if all of the Council are part of the liason team
16:09:01 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
16:09:13 bear that's what I was trying to say
16:09:25 stpeter because I agree with Dave about not wanting to set precedents about working in huggermugger
16:09:31 stpeter or in camera or whatever :P
16:09:40 Ashley hey guys — i have to jump to another meeting
16:10:21 Dave Cridland stpeter, "in camera" - s'latin, innit?
16:10:29 bear Ashley - are you +1 on liason in general
16:10:44 Ashley yes!
16:11:01 bear k, more details to follow on the list, thanks for attending while you could
16:11:17 arcriley it sounds like there's some questions to be determined before we can really move forward in a meaningful way though
16:11:38 bear it sounds like we can respond "yes, but we have some followup questions"
16:11:47 arcriley yup yup
16:11:55 stpeter that seems reasonable
16:12:03 stpeter "yes in principle"
16:13:04 Florian2 Yup, sounds good
16:13:12 stpeter so shall I work with the Board on a suitable reply and some follow-up questions?
16:13:25 bear +1
16:13:46 stpeter ok
16:13:52 arcriley +1
16:13:59 stpeter happy to have that discussion on the members@ list for transparency
16:14:04 Florian2 +1
16:14:13 stpeter transparency is good
16:14:19 bear members@ works for this - will get more folks involved
16:14:22 Peter Waher I would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence
16:14:48 Florian2 bear: yeah
16:14:49 Peter Waher feels awkward having to ask them what XSF sent to them, when being part of XSF and their working groups
16:15:16 arcriley lol
16:15:19 stpeter Peter Waher: if we discuss it on the members@ list, what we'll send will be in the open anyway :-)
16:15:23 bear i'm all for peter cc'ing the members list in all mailings TBH
16:15:40 Peter Waher (y)
16:15:51 Florian2 bear: +1
16:15:54 stpeter super
16:16:14 bear should we meet again in a week to followup or will you need more time?
16:16:35 stpeter that should be fine — I think we can work things out on the members@ list
16:16:39 stpeter before then
16:16:49 stpeter but scheduling a follow-up seems fine
16:17:05 bear k, i'll email the list about a meeting next week
16:17:57 Florian2 bear: great
16:18:23 bear peter - do we have more to discuss and do you have the needed information?
16:18:45 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 :-)
16:19:14 bear :)
16:19:29 bear anything else to discuss/add ?
16:19:44 Florian2 Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good
16:19:54 stpeter BTW, thanks to everyone for the input and questions about our topic of interest, that was all good feedback
16:20:10 stpeter I'm working out final details on a place to meet in Portland for the next Summit
16:20:31 stpeter so that should be nailed down very soon (this week)
16:20:33 bear the summit in portland should be very active
16:20:57 stpeter yes, lots of security topics of interest these days
16:21:07 Florian2 :)
16:21:42 bear waits a couple more minutes before making the call to close the meeting
16:24:03 bear k, I think we can call today's meeting done then
16:24:19 Florian2 Alrighty :)
16:24:27 bear thanks all for attending and thank you Peter for the work on this issue
16:24:49 Florian2 Thanks all
16:24:55 Florian2 See you next week
16:24:58 bear i'll do the minutes email after I get done yelling at some servers
16:25:05 stpeter great, I'll add the meeting to the calendar this time
16:25:05 Peter Waher thanks, bye
16:25:10 stpeter thanks Peter
16:25:15 Florian2 has left
16:25:18 Peter Waher has left
16:27:18 stpeter time to head to the office, bbiab
16:27:23 stpeter has left
16:28:22 Dave Cridland has left
16:30:39 fsteinel has joined
16:30:46 fippo has left
16:32:53 Tobias has joined
16:41:50 Lance has joined
16:45:11 m&m has left
17:11:50 Lloyd has left
17:16:40 fsteinel has left
17:36:54 Ashley has left
17:45:11 stpeter has joined
17:45:11 stpeter has left
17:45:17 stpeter has joined
18:34:30 stpeter has left
19:04:22 Tobias has left
19:34:56 Ashley has joined
19:39:29 fsteinel has joined
19:41:40 fsteinel has left
19:59:43 Lance has left
20:09:30 Alex has left
21:19:24 stpeter has joined
21:19:56 Ashley has left
21:34:35 Ashley has joined
21:51:27 Ashley has left
22:00:03 Ashley has joined
22:12:27 Ashley has left
23:10:03 Lance has joined
23:12:07 stpeter has left