On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 21:47, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> *2019-03-13 (expired 2019-03-27)*
>
> PASSED (-0:2:+3)
> *Proposed XMPP Extension: E2E Authentication in XMPP: Certificate Issuance
> and Revocation* - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-cir.html
> Dave: +1 (tentatively; seems in-scope)
>
Sure, the chat in that room so far was mainly about the room itself anyways :D
Am 2. April 2019 17:30:58 MESZ schrieb "Jonas Schäfer" :
>On Montag, 1. April 2019 10:13:27 CEST Paul Schaub wrote:
>> xmpp:s...@conference.jabberhead.tk?join
>
>Can we please move the discussion to xsf@? This is
On Montag, 1. April 2019 10:13:27 CEST Paul Schaub wrote:
> xmpp:s...@conference.jabberhead.tk?join
Can we please move the discussion to xsf@? This is definitely standards-
related, and we do not need yet another MUC.
kind regards,
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
[stripping out the arguments I don't disagree with, to further
illuminate a specific point]
* Kevin Smith [2019-04-02 13:03]:
> I don’t really think what you’re looking for here is a clarification
> of the intent of the XEP, but a change of behaviour.
I can agree with that, so in retrospect,
On 2 Apr 2019, at 11:06, Georg Lukas wrote:
> thank you for picking this up again, and I'm sorry for the -1. I wrote
> in the Meeting that it's not impossible to convince me to change my
> mind, but you have to provide very strong arguments…
I don’t really think what you’re looking for here is a
Hello Kev,
thank you for picking this up again, and I'm sorry for the -1. I wrote
in the Meeting that it's not impossible to convince me to change my
mind, but you have to provide very strong arguments...
* Kevin Smith [2019-04-02 10:52]:
> It’s the original message @id - if you follow the
Sorry that this got buried in my mailbox and I didn’t notice it.
On 17 Nov 2018, at 16:32, Georg Lukas wrote:
> when correcting a previously corrected message, do you reference the
> original message @id or the message @id of the last correction to that
> message?
It’s the original message @id
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:40 PM, Florian Schmaus
wrote:
I am a little bit worried that this will take a few detours to
implement
cleanly and elegant in clients and client libraries. Especially since
this pattern never occurred before.
Instead I suggest the following control flow, which should
