[Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

Jonas Schäfer jonas at wielicki.name
Wed May 27 15:14:19 UTC 2020


Hi everyone,

In order to find a meeting time, please fill out the Dudle at the following 
link if you intend to participate:

https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/WjeASA5f4A/

Each slot is meant to be at least two hours long. Please put your availability 
in there. If you don’t feel comfortable with sharing your availability 
publicly, feel free to either use an alias (mind that this possibly won’t keep 
you anonymous) or send me an email directly with your availability info so 
that I can take it into account in the final scheduling decision.

(also, the poll got quite unclear because I wanted to give a two-week time 
window and quite a few options, I hope you can manage. If you have a better 
tool we can use for this, let me know.)

kind regards,
Jonas


On Samstag, 9. Mai 2020 18:35:30 CEST Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> In light of yet another comment-less expiry of a Last Call for XEP-0280, we
> came to the conclusion that we need focused work on Message Routing rules.
> 
> While I won’t participate directly, I’m going to organize this sprint so
> that the participants can concentrate on the actual standards and
> implementation work. The idea of a sprint came in light of the great
> success which is the new OMEMO version, and we hope to be able to
> accumulate a similar success in the context of message routing.
> 
> The goal of the sprint is to work out corner cases of routing of message
> stanzas of all types in the presence of multiple different devices/resources
> on a single account, maybe not all of them online at the same time. I.e.
> the roles of XEP-0280, the rules in XEP-0313 and of course XEP-0409.
> 
> Due to the state of the world, the sprint shall take place remotely. The
> remote platform will probably be one or another Jitsi Meet instance [1].
> 
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are
> interested in participating within a week. Next week around this time,
> we’ll start agreeing on a timeslot and work out the meeting details.
> 
> If you cannot or do not want to participate, but still know of important
> and/ or easily overlooked routing cases which should be taken into
> consideration, feel free to reply with that information to this message on
> the list.
> 
> kind regards,
> Jonas
> 
>    [1]: Unfortunately, Jitsi Meet has multiple accessibility issues. One is
>         the fact that it still won’t work reliably with non-Chromium
> browsers. The other is hearsay I got from visually impaired people that the
> UI is not usable for them. Also unfortunately, I don’t know of another
> platform we could use without sponsorship. If you have suggestions for a
> more accessible alternative or want to participate in the sprint and would
> be hindered by the use of Jitsi Meet, please contact me privately and, if
> you wish, GPG encrypted for your privacy.
> 
>         Please keep the discussion about the meeting platform off-list
> though, it is not on-topic for standards at .

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200527/e2dfe7e9/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list