XSF Discussion - 2013-09-18


  1. weizfan

    hi,guys

  2. weizfan_1111

    anybody here

  3. weizfan_1111

    oh,lazy guys

  4. weizfan_1111

    why not getting up

  5. Alex

    weizfan_1111: how can we help you?

  6. weizfan_1111

    i tired of silent

  7. weizfan_1111

    why not say something

  8. Alex

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

  9. weizfan_1111

    okay

  10. weizfan_1111

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

  11. Alex

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

  12. Alex

    its all about xmpp development, many developers hang out there

  13. Ashley

    hey all — is it board meeting time?

  14. stpeter

    yes

  15. arcriley

    With an audience no less

  16. bear

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

  17. stpeter

    oh weird

  18. stpeter

    I don't see bear here

  19. stpeter

    might need to rejoin

  20. arcriley

    he's a moderator

  21. Ashley

    bear is in the list?

  22. Ashley

    s/?/.

  23. stpeter

    ah, that's better

  24. stpeter

    presence issues

  25. stpeter

    anyway, joined from another account

  26. bear

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

  27. Kev

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

  28. bear

    Ashley, Arc and myself - present

  29. bear

    Florian?

  30. bear

    Jason?

  31. Ashley

    i see Florian in the room roster

  32. stpeter

    Jason didn't reply

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

  34. bear also cannot spell today

  35. Florian

    Hi all

  36. stpeter

    simple majority for a quorum

  37. stpeter

    hi Florian :-)

  38. arcriley

    well we certainly have quorum now

  39. bear

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

  40. Ashley

    drumroll

  41. bear

    remember to update your bios for the 2014 board election folks

  42. Ashley

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

  43. 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

  44. stpeter

    right

  45. stpeter

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

  46. stpeter

    TC 122, which does work on logistics and such

  47. stpeter

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

  48. stpeter

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

  49. Florian

    :)

  50. 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

  51. stpeter

    unfortunately, regular folks can't just join those discussions

  52. stpeter

    because of their access controls over things they are working on

  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

  54. bear

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

  55. stpeter

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

  56. stpeter

    there are a few questions that arise, of course

  57. stpeter

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

  58. Peter Waher

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

  59. stpeter

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

  60. Peter Waher

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

  61. stpeter

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

  62. Peter Waher

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

  63. Peter Waher

    http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/InternetOfThings

  64. Peter Waher

    this is related

  65. 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

  66. Peter Waher

    they are various groups looking at similar thing

  67. Peter Waher

    s

  68. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, IoT stuff is hot

  69. 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

  70. Peter Waher

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

  71. 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

  72. Ashley

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

  73. bear

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

  74. stpeter

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

  75. Ashley

    ok

  76. Peter Waher

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

  77. 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"

  78. Peter Waher

    This, they have done

  79. stpeter

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

  80. Peter Waher

    and probably want us to double check

  81. Ashley

    right, make sense

  82. stpeter

    Peter Waher: yes, that seems reasonable

  83. Florian

    right

  84. Peter Waher

    they have issues with legacy binary encoding of information and tagging

  85. 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

  86. Peter Waher

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

  87. stpeter

    yes

  88. stpeter

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

  89. 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

  90. stpeter

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

  91. Dave Cridland

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

  92. Ashley

    that seems like a good way to go

  93. Florian

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

  94. stpeter

    Dave: right

  95. Dave Cridland

    Which obviously costs us in terms of effort.

  96. Florian

    Dave Cridland: right

  97. arcriley

    stpeter are you volunteering?

  98. stpeter

    it helps to legitimize the XSF, perhaps :-)

  99. 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 :-)

  100. Ashley

    i look at it like building our ecosystem

  101. Florian2

    Yeah

  102. Peter Waher

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

  103. stpeter

    Peter Waher: agreed

  104. Peter Waher

    and spread knowledge of the area

  105. stpeter

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

  106. stpeter

    but that's a separate issue :-)

  107. Peter Waher

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

  108. Peter Waher

    And I'm sure Joachim is as well

  109. Kev

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

  110. stpeter

    yes

  111. Kev

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

  112. 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)

  113. stpeter

    it seems to me that they want a sanity check

  114. Kev

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

  115. Kev

    (e.g. stpeter)

  116. Florian2

    Yeah

  117. stpeter

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

  118. stpeter

    ^ + are

  119. stpeter

    Peter Waher: are you able to participate fully already?

  120. 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

  121. stpeter

    heck, I could probably participate with my Cisco hat on

  122. Peter Waher

    yes

  123. Dave Cridland

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

  124. stpeter

    Dave: translator how?

  125. Dave Cridland

    Translating both XMPPisms and XSFisms (and ISOisms)

  126. 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

  127. Peter Waher

    in a more formal manner

  128. Dave Cridland

    Ah. That might be awkward. :-)

  129. Florian2

    Ah, right

  130. 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

  131. Dave Cridland

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

  132. stpeter

    hehehe

  133. Peter Waher

    :)

  134. Florian2

    :)

  135. Florian2

    Would anyone from the council be interested?

  136. 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™

  137. Florian2

    Alongside stpeter

  138. stpeter

    this is my sense of things, anyway

  139. Peter Waher

    I believe so too

  140. Peter Waher

    however, there

  141. Peter Waher

    's one item of concern

  142. Kev

    Florian2: I guess I could.

  143. Florian2

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

  144. Peter Waher

    and that's legacy binary encodings

  145. stpeter

    hey, we have binary XMPP, no problem :P

  146. Peter Waher

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

  147. Florian2

    stpeter: lol

  148. Peter Waher

    for interoperability's sake

  149. stpeter nods

  150. Peter Waher

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

  151. stpeter

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

  152. Peter Waher

    exactly

  153. Peter Waher

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

  154. Peter Waher

    and what I personally believe is the correct solution

  155. Peter Waher

    now, there are 3 proposed solutions

  156. stpeter

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

  157. Peter Waher

    1) The XEPS 0322-0326

  158. Peter Waher

    2) Bits of binary (not recommended)

  159. 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)

  160. Peter Waher

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

  161. stpeter

    ah

  162. stpeter

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

  163. Peter Waher

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

  164. 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

  165. Peter Waher

    (y)

  166. stpeter

    (which itself raises an issue about broader review)

  167. Peter Waher

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

  168. Peter Waher

    But they have no problems sending them to any participants

  169. arcriley

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

  170. 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)

  171. stpeter

    arcriley: good question

  172. stpeter

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

  173. Peter Waher

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

  174. 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

  175. Peter Waher

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

  176. Dave Cridland

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

  177. stpeter

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

  178. Peter Waher

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

  179. 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.

  180. stpeter

    right

  181. Peter Waher

    I've been very consistent regarding openness

  182. arcriley

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

  183. Florian2

    Yeah

  184. Peter Waher

    They know it and respect it

  185. Peter Waher

    So I believe we can push that point

  186. bear

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

  187. 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

  188. bear

    that's what I was trying to say

  189. stpeter

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

  190. stpeter

    or in camera or whatever :P

  191. Ashley

    hey guys — i have to jump to another meeting

  192. Dave Cridland

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

  193. bear

    Ashley - are you +1 on liason in general

  194. Ashley

    yes!

  195. bear

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

  196. arcriley

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

  197. bear

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

  198. arcriley

    yup yup

  199. stpeter

    that seems reasonable

  200. stpeter

    "yes in principle"

  201. Florian2

    Yup, sounds good

  202. stpeter

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

  203. bear

    +1

  204. stpeter

    ok

  205. arcriley

    +1

  206. stpeter

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

  207. Florian2

    +1

  208. stpeter

    transparency is good

  209. bear

    members@ works for this - will get more folks involved

  210. Peter Waher

    I would appreciate if you could cc me any any correspondence

  211. Florian2

    bear: yeah

  212. Peter Waher

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

  213. arcriley

    lol

  214. stpeter

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

  215. bear

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

  216. Peter Waher

    (y)

  217. Florian2

    bear: +1

  218. stpeter

    super

  219. bear

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

  220. stpeter

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

  221. stpeter

    before then

  222. stpeter

    but scheduling a follow-up seems fine

  223. bear

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

  224. Florian2

    bear: great

  225. bear

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

  226. 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 :-)

  227. bear

    :)

  228. bear

    anything else to discuss/add ?

  229. Florian2

    Not on my end besides looks like FOSDEM is all good

  230. stpeter

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

  231. stpeter

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

  232. stpeter

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

  233. bear

    the summit in portland should be very active

  234. stpeter

    yes, lots of security topics of interest these days

  235. Florian2

    :)

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

  237. bear

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

  238. Florian2

    Alrighty :)

  239. bear

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

  240. Florian2

    Thanks all

  241. Florian2

    See you next week

  242. bear

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

  243. stpeter

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

  244. Peter Waher

    thanks, bye

  245. stpeter

    thanks Peter

  246. stpeter

    time to head to the office, bbiab