XSF Discussion - 2020-02-11

  1. wurstsalat

    Last thing I remember was a design contest. But was there a decision? Also: Do we have one or two sets (simple badge/bigger one for official websites)?

  2. Guus

    wurstsalat IIRC, we are in process of reaching out to the designer of the stuff that we picked. I'm afraid that that has fallen off the radar a bit though.

  3. Guus

    Unless ralphm has had updates?

  4. ralphm

    I don't, tried to get in contact a while ago and didn't succeed. Then fell off the radar

  5. jonas’

    dwd, glad to see you’re still alive. Care to also vote on the advancement of XEP-0363? The vote expires tomorrow.

  6. theTedd

    jonas’, dave voted -- https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-February/036962.html

  7. jonas’

    theTedd, uuuh thanks

  8. jonas’

    I totally missed that one

  9. jonas’

    and it’s old, too

  10. jonas’

    Daniel, Subject: DRAFT: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload) congrats! :)

  11. Daniel

    jonas’: thanks :)

  12. theTedd

    quick question about XEP-0085 (Chat State Notifications): I shouldn't receive notifications from events that happened while I was offline (right?) - is that the client's fault for sending them, or the server's fault for storing them, or both?

  13. Daniel

    Probably the servers fault for storing them

  14. jonas’

    theTedd, it’s not the clients fault for sending them

  15. jonas’

    your presence state may be stale or hidden or ...

  16. Daniel

    And/or the clients fault for not setting proper hints

  17. Daniel

    But I wouldn't blame the sender for sending them

  18. theTedd

    it's all jabber.org's fault - hints are there too

  19. Daniel

    No store?

  20. theTedd

    from memory, but yes I think so

  21. lovetox

    omg a XEP made it to DRAFT

  22. lovetox

    congrats Daniel

  23. lovetox

    i thought i never live to see that day

  24. jonas’

    I hope we’ll see more of that in this and the next quarter

  25. jonas’


  26. lovetox

    crazy times

  27. jonas’


  28. moparisthebest

    What was the last xep before that made it to draft? And the last that went final?

  29. Ge0rG

    I still think we should merge draft and final into a common "living standard" phase

  30. jonas’

    moparisthebest, XEP-0300 on 2019-11-13

  31. jonas’

    moparisthebest, XEP-0300 to Draft on 2019-11-13

  32. jonas’

    right before that, XEP-0423 on 2019-11-07

  33. jonas’

    re Final: my git foo may be tricking me, but it’s possible that was XEP-0047 on 2012-06-22

  34. moparisthebest


  35. jonas’

    (though we have did start the process for a move to final for '198 today)

  36. jonas’

    (and I expect it to pass without much trouble)

  37. moparisthebest

    I was planning to try to push 368 to final when the time was up but apparently forgot

  38. jonas’

    moparisthebest, right, we figured that out after the last Council session

  39. jonas’

    good idea

  40. moparisthebest

    I don't generally set calendar reminders that far out then just forget about it :)

  41. jonas’

    I’m going to fire up a CFE for that right now, those are cheap. And the Editor can simply do that.

  42. jonas’


  43. jonas’

    (I expect the LC I put on the Council agenda not to start before next week, so we won’t have too many things in-flight)

  44. jonas’

    moparisthebest, there you go, lots of feedback to XEP-0368 (and also why I think it can’t move to final as-is)

  45. moparisthebest

    well the mixing is a SHOULD not a MUST, it's even watered down further with "However, clients MAY choose to prefer one type of connection over the other."

  46. moparisthebest

    which, reading again, is kind of funky :)

  47. moparisthebest

    I'll respond officially on-list later, but long story short I'm not married to that at all

  48. jonas’

    moparisthebest, not saying you are, just saying that we need to spell things out clearly before moving on to Final

  49. jonas’

    and if we allow Mixing but not have it a MUST, it the operator considerations still need to be written down

  50. moparisthebest

    yep absolutely

  51. jonas’

    (also the "dot" cases I mentioned in the email, although I found that you have one of them already covered in section 5)

  52. jonas’

    the document needs a nice table with how to handle the different cases.

  53. moparisthebest

    a server operator can't count on anything regardless (any addresses/ports could be blocked from any client/server with any SRV records), that maybe should be spelled out anyway though

  54. jonas’


  55. jonas’

    with STARTTLS, you at least can count on the order things are tried, even though you cannot rely on observing that order

  56. moparisthebest

    and that pretty much makes the mixing thing not matter, you either do standard xmpp, direct tls, either alone or one after the other, or mix them

  57. jonas’

    in which case it should be downgraded from a SHOULD to a MAY

  58. jonas’

    with clearly spelling out why it doesn’t matter in practice

  59. moparisthebest

    that sounds right

  60. moparisthebest

    if you look at the commit history it used to be a MUST and it was downgraded to a SHOULD right before going to draft if I remember correctly

  61. jonas’

    sounds about right

  62. debacle

    How are version numbers of XEPs interpreted? Semantic Versioning?

  63. jonas’

    debacle, don’t ask that

  64. debacle

    jonas’ hehe

  65. jonas’

    for Standards Track: 0.x.y = Experimental, 1.x.y = Draft, 2.x.y = Final

  66. jonas’

    (though [012].x.y may also be Deprecated/Obsoleted if it went there straight from the other state)

  67. jonas’

    debacle, I try to increase x only on non-Editorial changes

  68. debacle

    I see. Not *that* bad.

  69. jonas’

    except that it hasn’t always been handled this way, and some XEP versions don’t have a third digit and stuff like that

  70. jonas’

    I’m also quite unhappy with the major digit regime strictly relating to the status

  71. jonas’

    I’d prefer if we could bump the major version number in Draft if we do a namespace bump

  72. jonas’

    also, the move to Final is typically the most insignificant thing (because development towards that happens in Draft) and most certainly does not deserve a major version bump

  73. debacle

    jonas’ Thanks for the explanation!

  74. jonas’

    debacle, you’re welcome

  75. wurstsalat

    Guus, ralphm thanks Re Badges!

  76. Zash

    What's the appropriate error for a server to send when it receives a stanza meant for an external component that isn't connected at the moment?

  77. Zash

    Prosody says wait, service-unavailable, but this apparently means "MUC occupant limit reached"

  78. Zash

    Not seeing anything in xep-0114 or 0225 about this

  79. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#enter-maxusers Why isn't this resource-constraint ?