Re: [Standards] XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017

[Dave Cridland]

On 28 February 2017 at 16:37, JC Brand  wrote:
> 2) Georg opened an PR on MUC private messages, 
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
>
> Dave Cridland thinks it needs some security considerations, in particular
> around replacing/removing client-added  stuff.

I'm not wild about this, due to the use of "SHOULD" adding a normative
requirement which existing implementations will not, by and large,
satisfy.

In general, the "right" way to do this would be to introduce a new
feature, or a namespace bump - but this change is sufficiently small,
and can be done exclusively client-side, so I'm (somewhat reluctantly)
going to accept that this is the most reasonable option.

Doesn't need the security considerations I thought it might, incidentally.

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017

[Daniel Gultsch]

2017-03-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Florian Schmaus :
> On 28.02.2017 17:37, JC Brand wrote:
>> XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017
>> =
>>
>> 1). Clarify CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption
>>
>> Tobias: Flow created PRs which clarify things and asked council to review.
>> Would be nice if people could do so.
>> …
>> Link Mauve mentions that a NS bump is required due to the removal of 
>> .
>
> That is not entirely correct: The namespace bump is required so that
> clients know when they can assume that the carbons state is restored
> after the stream got resumed. That is why I changed the namespace in the PR.
>
> But since bump was necessary anyway, I also decided to remove 
> in favour in xep334 hints, which I think is sensible.

sorry about that; This was just about Georgs PR by itself. We were
talking about if Georgs PR has changes (other than the  tag)
that would require NS bump. The context probably got lost in the
minutes.

If we need the NS anyway than it would be more of a no-brainer to
merge yours as well.

cheers
Daniel
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017

[Florian Schmaus]

On 28.02.2017 17:37, JC Brand wrote:
> XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017
> =
> 
> 1). Clarify CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption
> 
> Tobias: Flow created PRs which clarify things and asked council to review.
> Would be nice if people could do so.
> …
> Link Mauve mentions that a NS bump is required due to the removal of 
> .

That is not entirely correct: The namespace bump is required so that
clients know when they can assume that the carbons state is restored
after the stream got resumed. That is why I changed the namespace in the PR.

But since bump was necessary anyway, I also decided to remove 
in favour in xep334 hints, which I think is sensible.

- Florian




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017

[Dave Cridland]

Thanks for doing these! Really appreciated.

On 28 February 2017 at 16:37, JC Brand  wrote:
> XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017
> =
>
> Present: daniel, Tobias, Link Mauve, SamWhited, Dave Cridland
> Minute taker: jcbrand
>
> 1). Clarify CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption
>
> Tobias: Flow created PRs which clarify things and asked council to review.
> Would be nice if people could do so.
>
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/427
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/428
>
> Daniel asks where we are currently with the NS bump for carbons and whether
> it's necessary.
>
> Tobias mentions that he hasn't read through all the feedback yet.
>
> Link Mauve mentions that a NS bump is required due to the removal of 
> .
>
> Daniel says that some people want to keep .
>
> Dave Cridland says that Georg Lukas has decided to put together a PR
> as a concrete proposal.
>
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434
>
> Dave Cridland says he's happy to have a namespace bump as long as implementors
> follow up and don't stick on the old one. He therefore wants some feedback on
> the above pull request.
>
> SamWhited and Tobias say they'll read the proposal.
>
> Daniel says he can live with a version bump but thinks only removing of
>  doesn't make it worth it.
>
> Link Mauve says that the rules definition from Georg also justify a namespace
> bump.
>
> Link Mauve suggests asking that #428 not bump the namespace, and to let
> the editor bump it manually once all of the changes are gathered.
>
> SamWhited says that he prefers that it bumps the namespace and he'll then 
> merge
> several other changes (if there are any) and then do a collective revision
> bump.
>
> Dave Cridland says he'd rather bump than risk incompatible deployments.
>
> 2) Georg opened an PR on MUC private messages, 
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
>
> Tobias suggests that council members give it a review and to vote on it next
> week so that there's time to incorporate a review feedback early on.
>
> Link Mauve is +1 since it does solve the issue.
>
> Dave Cridland thinks it needs some security considerations, in particular
> around replacing/removing client-added  stuff.
>
> daniel says he's going to vote +1 for it.
>
> 3) Date of next meeting
>
> Tobias: that would be 2017-03-08, 16:00 UTC
>
> Everyone agrees.
>
> 4) Any other business
>
> 4.1) Dave Cridland wonders whether a GSoC provides an opportunity to create 
> project
> to help with complex bits of editor automation. Suggests a discussion between
> the editors and Kev. He suggests pre-rendering of PRs.
>
> SamWhited likes the idea of making such a project.
>
> Tobias says we can make a "XSF" project on the GSoC ideas page but warns that
> it must be enough to full a GSoC term.
>
> SamWhited says there's plenty of stuff to keep a student busy.
>
> 4.2) SamWhited mentions that outstanding LCs end tomorrow again.
>
> Tobias says he'll do some reading/voting later today.
>
> Tobias bangs the gavel.
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

[Standards] XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017

[JC Brand]

XSF Council Minutes: 28 February 2017
=

Present: daniel, Tobias, Link Mauve, SamWhited, Dave Cridland
Minute taker: jcbrand

1). Clarify CSI and Carbons state after SM resumption

Tobias: Flow created PRs which clarify things and asked council to review.
Would be nice if people could do so.

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/427
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/428

Daniel asks where we are currently with the NS bump for carbons and whether
it's necessary.

Tobias mentions that he hasn't read through all the feedback yet.

Link Mauve mentions that a NS bump is required due to the removal of .

Daniel says that some people want to keep .

Dave Cridland says that Georg Lukas has decided to put together a PR
as a concrete proposal.

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434

Dave Cridland says he's happy to have a namespace bump as long as implementors
follow up and don't stick on the old one. He therefore wants some feedback on
the above pull request.

SamWhited and Tobias say they'll read the proposal.

Daniel says he can live with a version bump but thinks only removing of
 doesn't make it worth it.

Link Mauve says that the rules definition from Georg also justify a namespace
bump.

Link Mauve suggests asking that #428 not bump the namespace, and to let
the editor bump it manually once all of the changes are gathered.

SamWhited says that he prefers that it bumps the namespace and he'll then merge
several other changes (if there are any) and then do a collective revision
bump.

Dave Cridland says he'd rather bump than risk incompatible deployments.

2) Georg opened an PR on MUC private messages, 
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436

Tobias suggests that council members give it a review and to vote on it next
week so that there's time to incorporate a review feedback early on.

Link Mauve is +1 since it does solve the issue.

Dave Cridland thinks it needs some security considerations, in particular
around replacing/removing client-added  stuff.

daniel says he's going to vote +1 for it.

3) Date of next meeting

Tobias: that would be 2017-03-08, 16:00 UTC

Everyone agrees.

4) Any other business

4.1) Dave Cridland wonders whether a GSoC provides an opportunity to create 
project
to help with complex bits of editor automation. Suggests a discussion between
the editors and Kev. He suggests pre-rendering of PRs.

SamWhited likes the idea of making such a project.

Tobias says we can make a "XSF" project on the GSoC ideas page but warns that
it must be enough to full a GSoC term.

SamWhited says there's plenty of stuff to keep a student busy.

4.2) SamWhited mentions that outstanding LCs end tomorrow again.

Tobias says he'll do some reading/voting later today.

Tobias bangs the gavel.

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___