[Council] 2016-11-23 Council Meeting Minutes

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue Nov 29 12:25:30 UTC 2016

2016-11-24 14:22 GMT+01:00 Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com>:
> ## 5) There are a couple outstanding XEP submissions that need revoting.
> Votes are taken to the list.
> ## 5a) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/burner.html


> ## 5b) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/omemo.html


> ## 5c) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/omemo-filetransfer.html

There is a security element in Jingle which this XEP should probably
use. I didn't know about that at the time and I'm still unsure on how
exactly this would be used but I'll look into that at some time in the

> ## 5d) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/spoiler.html


> ## 6) There are a couple outstanding pull requests that need revoting too.
> ## 6a) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/204

There has been some debate over where registry entries are actually
defined and whether this additional form value should be defined in
the XEP or directly in the registry.
In general I think there are 3 different ways one could deal with
registry entries.
1) Only the original XEP shall add new registry entries
2) Everyone can add new registry entries
3) Every XEP can add new registry entries.

Rule (2) would make sense for something like disco identities. (Where
the different types like PC, Notebook, Tablet etc are defined) because
when a new type of something appears on the market - which I guess
happens fairly frequently - it doesn't make sense to change the XEP
every time.
Rule (3) makes sense in something like disco features. Those are
introduced by other XEPs. But there has to be a XEP. You can't just
randomly add new features.
Rule (1) is sort of the default.

I propose that future XEPs that in some way deal with the registry
SHOULD declare which of the rules they want to follow. For legacy XEPs
(or lazy XEPs for that matter) one MUST assume the default rule (1).

So in case of MUC we have basically two options: Leave XEP-0045 with
the default rule which doesn't allow for external registry additions.
Thus the PR should be merged because there is no other way. Or we
change XEP-0045 to rule (3) and make the registry entry in the
I don't think rule (2) would make sense for MUC-XEP.

Since XEP-0045 is at some point to be replaced with MIX I'm not sure
if it's worth putting more effort into this. Just merging the PR is
simple and certainly not 'wrong'. Just arguable bad style. But
avoiding bad style can only be avoided by putting significantly more
work into this.

> ## 6b) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/263


> ## 6c) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/267


> ## 6d) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/232



More information about the Council mailing list