[Standards] Council Minutes 2019-08-28

Tedd Sterr teddsterr at outlook.com
Mon Sep 2 19:57:34 UTC 2019


http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2019-08-28?p=h#2019-08-28-28ffa67a8ccb60ed

1) Roll Call
Present: Jonas, Georg, Dave, Link
Apologies: Kev

2) Agenda Bashing
Dave apologises for the lack of agenda this week; is unaware of anything in particular, but believes there was a Last Call now due for a vote - Jonas confirms there were LCs for XEP-0300 and XEP-0353.

3) Current Activity
Dave doesn't think there is anything currently active, but did notice some updated XEPs - Jonas notes the official release of XEP-0421 (Anonymous unique occupant identifiers for MUCs) and the obsoleting of XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2018).

4a) Advance to Draft: XEP-0300 (Use of Cryptographic Hash Functions in XMPP) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html
Georg: [on-list]
Jonas: +1 (I think)
Dave: +1 (I think)
Link: [on-list]
Kev: [pending]

Georg doesn't think Table 1 belongs in the XEP, rather in an Informational XEP or a registry; Dave thinks the ideal solution would be registering the names with IANA - Jonas notes that that would require an RFC which updates RFC 3279 [1]. Georg is unsure whether the table is subject to change, but will vote +1 if it's guaranteed to remain as-is.

4b) Advance to Draft: XEP-0353 (Jingle Message Initiation) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0353.html
Georg: [on-list]
Jonas: [on-list] (default to -0)
Dave: +1 (seems widely deployed and sensible)
Link: [on-list] (default to +1)
Kev: [pending]

Jonas has little knowledge of Jingle, and there was no LC feedback.
Georg needs to review the XEP for MAM and Carbons side-effects.
Jonas questions whether it is widely deployed, given the total lack of feedback during the month-long LC - Dave suggests that might be due to low energy and engagement - Jonas will send a mail to the list [2].

5) Outstanding votes
Dave thinks all previous votes have now expired [they have.]

6) Next Meeting
2019-09-04 1500 UTC

7) AOB
Link notes that multiple people have noticed previous Councils appear to have forgotten about Message Retraction [3] and, like Reactions, it's being held-up by the current 'message attachment' contention.
Dave agrees these are all related issues, but isn't sure Council can do much beyond evaluating a proposal. Georg asks whether the alternative should be for Council to reject everything requiring references until the Right Way is found - suggests some Council members could combine efforts to move things forward; Dave notes that it need not necessarily be Council members, and anyone is able to propose something.
Georg says some have questioned whether Council has the authority to reject a proto-XEP on such grounds - Jonas suggests 'duplicating existing protocol' as one possible reason, but agrees with the general sentiment.
Jonas suggests reaching out to client developers who are invested, and attempt to work together to find a solution - Dave thinks it would be nice to get a bunch of people to agree on a solution (maybe by way of discussion on a mailing list or chatroom of some kind.)
Georg can only imagine how discouraging it might be for someone to have their first XEP rejected on formal grounds, and they might not be inclined to do the work required to solve those formal issues; Link thinks it's a factoring issue, rather than a formal issue.
Jonas will reach out to those involved.

8) Close

Georg has radical ideas regarding message errors…



[1] RFC 3279: Algorithms and Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3279>

[2] https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-August/036377.html

[3] Message Retraction - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/message-retraction.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20190902/c1f4269c/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list