[Council] meeting minutes, 2007-06-13

Ralph Meijer jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jun 13 13:33:57 CDT 2007


My comments, based on the logs.

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 11:51 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> [..]
>
> 2. XEP-0080: User Geolocation
> 
> Approve version 1.4pre2?
> 
> Discussed Ralph's point that the location format could be used with 
> different transports. Consensus that pubsub (via PEP) should be the 
> recommended transport for location information about human users but 
> that this recommendation does not forbid other uses. Peter to write 
> proposed text to capture this consensus, after which the Council shall 
> decide to approve version 1.4pre3 of XEP-0080.

Most of these extended presence specs were created with that use case in
mind. I raised the format point because of the removal of the mention of
other transport possibilities. I agree that as far as declaring support
for any of these specs, we expect the use of these formats over the
preferred channel PEP and nothing else. If we need to define other uses
of any of these formats and have those announced via disco, we can
invent new '#something' suffixes to the namespaces.

Furthermore I think there maybe should be one spec that describes how to
publish information like extended presence (location, mood, activity,
etc) for an entity that can be represented by multiple resources at the
same time (like persons with a user account).

The protocol used would most likely be PEP, but I was wondering if we
could use Resource Application Priority (RAP, XEP -0168) for the
coordination bits. Either the service will ignore publishes from
non-primary resources, or clients would only publish when they have
determined themselves to be the primary resource. Ideas?

> 3. XEP-0106: JID Escaping
> 
> Approve version 1.1pre2?
> 
> Chris, Ian, and Kevin +1. Peter to re-read before posting to the list 
> that he is satisfied with the changes.

+1

> [..]
>
> 6. XEP-0211 and XEP-0212
> 
> Acceptable to refer to rfc3920bis and rfc3921bis rather than RFC 3920 
> and RFC 3921?
> 
> Kevin in favor of existing RFCs, Peter and Ian in favor of bis drafts, 
> Chris neutral. Peter to post to standards at xmpp.org list regarding pros 
> and cons in order to seek consensus.

I haven't seen any major things in the bis specs besides clarifications
and non-breaking improvements (presence handling). So I'd be ok to refer
to the bis versions of the specs.

Since I have been working on presence handling myself, and various other
core protocol things, I have a number of comments on the bis specs, so I
hope to submit those soon.

> 7. Priorities for remainder of Council term
> 
> Consensus on adding XEP-0136, XEP-0189, personal publishing, and private 
> storage to the roadmap as priorities for 2007.

+1

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm



More information about the Council mailing list