join another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent
weizfan_1111
okay
intosi@ik.nuhas left
intosi@ik.nuhas joined
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
weizfan_1111has left
Lloydhas left
Lloydhas joined
Alexhas left
stpeterhas joined
Lloydhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
Lloydhas joined
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
MattJhas left
bearhas joined
Peter Waherhas joined
Alexhas left
MattJhas joined
Florianhas joined
Ashleyhas joined
Lancehas joined
arcrileyhas joined
Ashley
hey all — is it board meeting time?
stpeter
yes
fippohas joined
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
Tobiashas joined
stpeterhas left
arcriley
he's a moderator
Ashley
bear is in the list?
Ashley
s/?/.
stpeterhas joined
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
bearforgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum
m&mhas joined
bearalso 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)?
Dave Cridlandhas joined
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
Florian2has joined
Florian2
Yeah
Florianhas left
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™
Alexhas joined
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
stpeternods
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
:)
bearwaits 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