-
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)?
-
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.
-
Guus
Unless ralphm has had updates?
-
ralphm
I don't, tried to get in contact a while ago and didn't succeed. Then fell off the radar
-
jonas’
dwd, glad to see you’re still alive. Care to also vote on the advancement of XEP-0363? The vote expires tomorrow.
-
theTedd
jonas’, dave voted -- https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-February/036962.html
-
jonas’
theTedd, uuuh thanks
-
jonas’
I totally missed that one
-
jonas’
and it’s old, too
-
jonas’
Daniel, Subject: DRAFT: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload) congrats! :)
-
Daniel
jonas’: thanks :)
-
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?
-
Daniel
Probably the servers fault for storing them
-
jonas’
theTedd, it’s not the clients fault for sending them
-
jonas’
your presence state may be stale or hidden or ...
-
Daniel
And/or the clients fault for not setting proper hints
-
Daniel
But I wouldn't blame the sender for sending them
-
theTedd
it's all jabber.org's fault - hints are there too
-
Daniel
No store?
-
theTedd
from memory, but yes I think so
-
lovetox
omg a XEP made it to DRAFT
-
lovetox
congrats Daniel
-
lovetox
i thought i never live to see that day
-
jonas’
I hope we’ll see more of that in this and the next quarter
-
jonas’
https://sotecware.net/images/dont-puush-me/3-_C0ZrAXnizG1GC2vRyi13AIXJDJcp9WKDEr_JmmMo.png
-
lovetox
crazy times
-
jonas’
s/crazy/interesting/
-
moparisthebest
What was the last xep before that made it to draft? And the last that went final?
-
Ge0rG
I still think we should merge draft and final into a common "living standard" phase
-
jonas’
moparisthebest, XEP-0300 on 2019-11-13✎ -
jonas’
moparisthebest, XEP-0300 to Draft on 2019-11-13 ✏
-
jonas’
right before that, XEP-0423 on 2019-11-07
-
jonas’
re Final: my git foo may be tricking me, but it’s possible that was XEP-0047 on 2012-06-22
-
moparisthebest
Ouch
-
jonas’
(though we have did start the process for a move to final for '198 today)
-
jonas’
(and I expect it to pass without much trouble)
-
moparisthebest
I was planning to try to push 368 to final when the time was up but apparently forgot
-
jonas’
moparisthebest, right, we figured that out after the last Council session
-
jonas’
good idea
-
moparisthebest
I don't generally set calendar reminders that far out then just forget about it :)
-
jonas’
I’m going to fire up a CFE for that right now, those are cheap. And the Editor can simply do that.
-
jonas’
done
-
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)
-
jonas’
moparisthebest, there you go, lots of feedback to XEP-0368 (and also why I think it can’t move to final as-is)
-
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."
-
moparisthebest
which, reading again, is kind of funky :)
-
moparisthebest
I'll respond officially on-list later, but long story short I'm not married to that at all
-
jonas’
moparisthebest, not saying you are, just saying that we need to spell things out clearly before moving on to Final
-
jonas’
and if we allow Mixing but not have it a MUST, it the operator considerations still need to be written down
-
moparisthebest
yep absolutely
-
jonas’
(also the "dot" cases I mentioned in the email, although I found that you have one of them already covered in section 5)
-
jonas’
the document needs a nice table with how to handle the different cases.
-
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
-
jonas’
true
-
jonas’
with STARTTLS, you at least can count on the order things are tried, even though you cannot rely on observing that order
-
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
-
jonas’
in which case it should be downgraded from a SHOULD to a MAY
-
jonas’
with clearly spelling out why it doesn’t matter in practice
-
moparisthebest
that sounds right
-
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
-
jonas’
sounds about right
-
debacle
How are version numbers of XEPs interpreted? Semantic Versioning?
-
jonas’
debacle, don’t ask that
-
debacle
jonas’ hehe
-
jonas’
for Standards Track: 0.x.y = Experimental, 1.x.y = Draft, 2.x.y = Final
-
jonas’
(though [012].x.y may also be Deprecated/Obsoleted if it went there straight from the other state)
-
jonas’
debacle, I try to increase x only on non-Editorial changes
-
debacle
I see. Not *that* bad.
-
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
-
jonas’
I’m also quite unhappy with the major digit regime strictly relating to the status
-
jonas’
I’d prefer if we could bump the major version number in Draft if we do a namespace bump
-
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
-
debacle
jonas’ Thanks for the explanation!
-
jonas’
debacle, you’re welcome
-
wurstsalat
Guus, ralphm thanks Re Badges!
-
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?
-
Zash
Prosody says wait, service-unavailable, but this apparently means "MUC occupant limit reached"
-
Zash
Not seeing anything in xep-0114 or 0225 about this
-
Zash
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#enter-maxusers Why isn't this resource-constraint ?