[Council] meeting minutes, 2007-06-13

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jun 14 12:13:44 CDT 2007

Ralph Meijer wrote:
> 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).

We used to have something like that in XEP-0119. We could resurrect that 

> 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?

Ah, hadn't thought of that. Pretty fancy. :)

>> 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.

Please do. I am working to get the -03 versions out soonish.


Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20070614/dd852b19/smime.bin

More information about the Council mailing list