Alexjoin another room, this is the room of the XSF here, if the XSF has nothing to discuss its silent
weizfan_1111Alex,can you recommend a c++ library for server?
Alexjdev@conference.jabber.org is the venue to ask this question
Alexits all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there
Peter Waherhas joined
Ashleyhey all — is it board meeting time?
arcrileyWith an audience no less
bearthe council meeting is still going, so we may have a couple of minutes before starting
stpeterI don't see bear here
stpetermight need to rejoin
arcrileyhe's a moderator
Ashleybear is in the list?
stpeterah, that's better
stpeteranyway, joined from another account
bearswift has been going into a zombie mode when my laptop hibernates
KevIt probably doesn't notice until TCP times out. We should fix that.
bearAshley, Arc and myself - present
Ashleyi see Florian in the room roster
stpeterJason didn't reply
bearforgets if 3 or 4 is requied for quorum
bearalso cannot spell today
stpetersimple majority for a quorum
stpeterhi Florian :-)
arcrileywell we certainly have quorum now
bear4 out of 5 - let's call that a win and start
bearremember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks
Ashleywas the primary agenda item engagement with that other standards body? iirc
bearyes, 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
stpeterso, we received a "liaison request" from a technical committee at ISO
stpeterTC 122, which does work on logistics and such
stpeterit's sort-of "Internet of Things" related
stpeternow, the ISO is a lot more formal than the XSF :-)
stpeterhowever, 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
stpeterunfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions
stpeterbecause of their access controls over things they are working on
stpeterso 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
bearis the liason allowed to send the info to others for review?
stpeteras I understand it, we would assign two or three people to review / participate
stpeterthere are a few questions that arise, of course
stpetere.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)
stpetersince 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)
stpeterPeter Waher: ah, are you guys participating already through normal ISO processes?
Peter Waheryes, through what is called IEEE/IEC/ISO P1451
Peter Waherthis is related
stpeteranother 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 Waherthey are various groups looking at similar thing
stpeterPeter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot
stpeterhow we handle these things on our side is up to us — e.g., we could assign just one person if we so please
Peter WaherI'm president of a subgroup, relating to xml & xmpp telegrams
stpeteror 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
Ashleydo we anticipate changes to XMPP itself, or simply new XEPs?
bearthat's why I was asking if the liason is allowed by the rules to pass on information for review
stpeterAshley: not changes to XMPP, and probably not any XEPs
Peter Waherduring the work we've done together, we've proposed XEP 0322-0326
stpeterPeter 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 WaherThis, they have done
stpeterI see it as similar in some ways to what the OpenADR folks did with OpenADR 2.0
Peter Waherand probably want us to double check
Ashleyright, make sense
stpeterPeter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable
Peter Waherthey have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging
stpetere.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 Waherso they probably want a third party to double check before publishing the standard
stpeterthus one question is, do we see the need for a liaison relationship?
stpeterif 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
stpeterunlike OpenADR, ISO is more formal and thus requires a bit more process
Dave CridlandA formal liason relationship would lend us some legitimacy, I'd imagine.
Ashleythat seems like a good way to go
FlorianI'd say: why not... don't really see any downsides here
Dave CridlandWhich obviously costs us in terms of effort.
FlorianDave Cridland: right
arcrileystpeter are you volunteering?
stpeterit helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)
stpeterarcriley: yes, I'd volunteer to be a liaison since all it really means is I review yet another standards spec in my life :-)
Ashleyi look at it like building our ecosystem
Peter Waherit would be great to build a broader concensus behind any IoT solutions the XSF proposes
stpeterPeter Waher: agreed
Peter Waherand spread knowledge of the area
stpeterPeter Waher: unfortunately we don't have a lot of participants who know that space very well
stpeterbut that's a separate issue :-)
Peter WaherI'm available for any comments, questions or doubts you may have
Peter WaherAnd I'm sure Joachim is as well
KevPresumably that's what they're discussing, though, and what *we're* needed for is the XMPP side
Kevand we do have some amount of knowledge about XMPP :)
Dave CridlandI'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)
stpeterit seems to me that they want a sanity check
KevIn which case we'd probably want to pick someone well versed in the XMPP side of things.
stpeterDave: well, Peter and Joachim already participating, it seems
stpeter^ + are
stpeterPeter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?
Peter WaherI 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
stpeterheck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on
Dave CridlandRight, but I'd expect the liason to be in the awkward position of acting as translator more than anything else.
stpeterDave: translator how?
Dave CridlandTranslating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)
Peter WaherIt should be remembered that this request is probably originating in the desire to double check what has been proposed by myself and Joachim
Peter Waherin a more formal manner
Dave CridlandAh. That might be awkward. :-)
Peter Waherso, 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."
Florian2Would anyone from the council be interested?
stpeterPeter 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™
stpeterthis is my sense of things, anyway
Peter WaherI believe so too
Peter Waherhowever, there
Peter Waher's one item of concern
KevFlorian2: I guess I could.
Florian2Actually, we may not even need 2 people from the XSF
Peter Waherand that's legacy binary encodings
stpeterhey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P
Peter WaherAnd I've been quite stubborn in explaining why it's not a good idea to continue down that road
Peter Waherfor interoperability's sake
Peter WaherI've proposed the use of bits of binary, for instance, but it would create a solution nobody would be interested in
stpeterbut it's not really for us to tell them what bindings they need to support, right?
Peter Waheri've tries to explain pros and cons for different solutions
Peter Waherand what I personally believe is the correct solution
Peter Wahernow, there are 3 proposed solutions
stpeterit seems that their decisions about old binary vs. new XML (aka "legacy JSON") are something that's up to them
Peter Waher1) The XEPS 0322-0326
Peter Waher2) 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 Waher3) a combination, where they use telegrams in (1), but encode binary field names using some kind of urn scheme
stpeterwell, this is something to work out in conversation with them
Peter WaherI guess, if somebody could validate the pros and cons, they could feel safer taking a decision
stpeterI'd prefer not to talk about the specifics much here because it's their IPR and their processes aren't all that open
stpeter(which itself raises an issue about broader review)
Peter WaherThey've sent us all documents, but we cannot forward them
Peter WaherBut they have no problems sending them to any participants
arcrileyso... the liason cannot forward them to the council for review?
stpeterbut 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)
stpeterarcriley: good question
stpeterarcriley: I just thought about that 10 minutes ago and I do not know the answer, but I can find out
Peter Waherwe've been clear on that point too: Any XEPs or documents leaving the XSF will be in the public domain
arcrileyif 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 WaherThey have discussed the possibility in publishing the documents in an open forum too...
Dave CridlandCouncil discussions are (or have been, historically) public.
stpeterarcriley: that's a possibility, although Council membership changes and as I understand it they'd want people to be appointed as individuals
Peter Waherbut today, the documents are still not public. Only they can send them to any participants
Dave CridlandWhile 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.
Peter WaherI've been very consistent regarding openness
arcrileyISO has got to have some precident in working with organizations like ours
Peter WaherThey know it and respect it
Peter WaherSo I believe we can push that point
bearthis would have to be not a Council issue, even if all of the Council are part of the liason team
stpeterwell, 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
bearthat's what I was trying to say
stpeterbecause I agree with Dave about not wanting to set precedents about working in huggermugger
stpeteror in camera or whatever :P
Ashleyhey guys — i have to jump to another meeting
Dave Cridlandstpeter, "in camera" - s'latin, innit?
bearAshley - are you +1 on liason in general
beark, more details to follow on the list, thanks for attending while you could
arcrileyit sounds like there's some questions to be determined before we can really move forward in a meaningful way though
bearit sounds like we can respond "yes, but we have some followup questions"
stpeterthat seems reasonable
stpeter"yes in principle"
Florian2Yup, sounds good
stpeterso shall I work with the Board on a suitable reply and some follow-up questions?
stpeterhappy to have that discussion on the members@ list for transparency
stpetertransparency is good
bearmembers@ works for this - will get more folks involved
Peter WaherI would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence
Peter Waherfeels awkward having to ask them what XSF sent to them, when being part of XSF and their working groups
stpeterPeter Waher: if we discuss it on the members@ list, what we'll send will be in the open anyway :-)
beari'm all for peter cc'ing the members list in all mailings TBH
bearshould we meet again in a week to followup or will you need more time?
stpeterthat should be fine — I think we can work things out on the members@ list
stpeterbut scheduling a follow-up seems fine
beark, i'll email the list about a meeting next week
bearpeter - do we have more to discuss and do you have the needed information?
stpeterI have what I need and I don't personally have any other business, but we might want to ask if anyone else does :-)
bearanything else to discuss/add ?
Florian2Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good
stpeterBTW, thanks to everyone for the input and questions about our topic of interest, that was all good feedback
stpeterI'm working out final details on a place to meet in Portland for the next Summit
stpeterso that should be nailed down very soon (this week)
bearthe summit in portland should be very active
stpeteryes, lots of security topics of interest these days
bearwaits a couple more minutes before making the call to close the meeting
beark, I think we can call today's meeting done then
bearthanks all for attending and thank you Peter for the work on this issue
Florian2See you next week
beari'll do the minutes email after I get done yelling at some servers
stpetergreat, I'll add the meeting to the calendar this time