[Council] Council Minutes 2018-02-07
kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Feb 21 10:48:37 UTC 2018
On 7 Feb 2018, at 17:13, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 2) Advance XEP-0363 to Draft - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-07/#16:04:07
-1 - I don’t think Dave’s LC feedback about security considerations has been addressed, and I really do think we need to at least say something about the implications for security boundaries here, even if we don’t do anything useful (although describing how to do something useful would be preferable).
> 3) Advance XEP-0352 to Draft - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-07/#16:11:22
> Georg noted the loose wording in §3.2. Dave and Sam both argued that
> this was a feature not a bug.
> Sam and Daniel both +1, Georg 0.
> Dave noted outstanding feedback from Kev, and is voting -1 until he
> understands what Kev wishes to do. (ie, this is a holding veto to
> avoid the specification advancing by default if Kev doesn't vote for
> some reason).
Thanks. I think my LC feedback needs at least some discussion, yes (so also -1 fending discussion).
> 4) Advance XEP-0234 to Draft - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-07/#16:15:32
> Daniel has outstanding feedback on this specification from Last Call.
> Dave, Sam, Georg +1.
> Daniel -1 (as above: feedback to be addressed)
+0. There was a lack of LC feedback here (just me and Daniel, that I can see, and Daniel’s somehow didn’t make it to my mail client).
> 5) Advance XEP-0186 to Draft - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-07/#16:17:55
I’m -1. The LC for the most recent version did have feedback in December (mine), including things that seem to not be right, which hasn’t received any further discussion. I almost +0d it, but given all of Council were +1 despite not mentioning (I checked the logs) that there's outstanding LC feedback it seems likely that everyone’s missed this somehow.
> 6) XEP-0198 handling of mismatched h value -
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/579 and list discussion.
+0. I’m not convinced this is helpful (reasons on standards@), but bow to the majority who are.
More information about the Council