Re: [Standards] Per Channel Nicks vs Global Nicks

On 4 June 2018 at 09:28, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 3 Jun 2018, at 17:13, Steve Kille wrote: > > > > Daniel, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Standards On Behalf Of Daniel > Gultsch > >> Sent: 03 June 2018 08:29 > >> To: XMPP Standards > >> Subject: Re: [Standards] Another proposal

Re: [Standards] MIX - an approach to JIDs that avoids the four into three problem

On 2 June 2018 at 09:25, Steve Kille wrote: > We've been talking about a number of variants to deal with the problem of > encoding four pieces of information in a JID structure that only allows > encoding of three. > > Here is an approach to avoid the problem. > > These JIDs are mostly

Re: [Standards] MIX Addressing

On 1 June 2018 at 17:19, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote: > >> > >> On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote: > >>> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come > from the channel’s JID,

Re: [Standards] MIX Addressing

I'd really much rather use the same identifier for both messages and presence if at all possible. On 1 June 2018 at 11:37, Steve Kille wrote: > A proposal: > > > 1. Use variant 2 for messages.Messages will come from bare JID of > channel, with resource being stable ID indicating the

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-05-30

Apparently it really is an agendum if there's only one thing on it. Like a referendum versus referenda. And, confusingly, multiple agendums and referendums. On 30 May 2018 at 14:55, Kevin Smith wrote: > Sure. Thanks for the agendumas. > > /K > > > On 30 May 2018, at 14:53, Da

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-05-30

I'm unfortunately unable to attend this week; could someone else chair the meeting? On 30 May 2018 at 14:51, Dave Cridland wrote: > Folks, > > The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting today (Wednesday) at > 1500 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability)

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-05-30

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting today (Wednesday) at 1500 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Best practices for GDPR compliant deployment of XMPP

Since we're sitting on this for a bit, I'm curious as to what the concerns with the XSF offering anything that might be considered "legal advice" actually are. I'm aware there's always been a lot of "IANAL" around on mailing lists, but I'm not even clear if that's just a bit of folk-legal or if

Re: [Standards] MIX Proxy Jids are People Too

On 24 May 2018 at 17:31, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: > On 24 May 2018, at 16:52, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > > > So the crux of my discussions about MIX proxy jids and stanza types with > Steve is that, as much as possible, message

[Standards] MIX Proxy Jids are People Too

So the crux of my discussions about MIX proxy jids and stanza types with Steve is that, as much as possible, messages should be carried in message stanzas that behave normally, and presence should be carried in presence stanzas that also may be treated as much as possible like any other presence

Re: [Standards] Presence Handling

On 24 May 2018 at 16:25, Steve Kille wrote: > Manuel, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Manuel Rubio > > Sent: 24 May 2018 15:21 > > To: XMPP Standards > > Cc: Steve Kille > > Subject: Re:

Re: [Standards] Where a MIX message comes from

On 24 May 2018 at 16:10, Steve Kille wrote: > Dave notes “Personally, I dislike the messages coming from the MIX > channel's bare jid - that's inconsistent with how presence works (or, > indeed, messages work normally). I'd rather they came from the full proxy > jid.” > >

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

On 24 May 2018 at 14:50, Manuel Rubio wrote: > Hi, > > I know that from MUC and probably even before the privacy for the user is > a priority and it's compulsory to use Proxy-JIDs in some way. But, in my > use case we have a closed system and all of the users know to the

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Best practices for GDPR compliant deployment of XMPP

On 23 May 2018 at 08:33, Kevin Smith wrote: > I suspect the appropriate approving body for this (which is presumably > legal advice rather than technical) would be Board rather than Council. > > Thoughts? > Board appears to formally approve only Procedural, which this

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-05-16

On 18 May 2018 at 07:21, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Donnerstag, 17. Mai 2018 15:11:45 CEST Kevin Smith wrote: > > Although I was -1 yesterday on HACX, I’d like to update that to +0. I > think > > there’s sufficient difference in business rules that having its own > number >

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-05-16

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1500 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] Update to MIX 0.9.7

On 10 May 2018 at 12:09, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > > essentially Joining, Leaving and Messaging, without any presence things > > Why we cannot use a pubsub node for this? XEP-0060 takes a message protocol and builds a pubsub service on top. You're suggesting that MIX

[Standards] Council Agenda 2018-05-09

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting today (Wednesday) at 1500 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 Room (JID) aliases

On 1 May 2018 at 12:03, Maxime Buquet <p...@bouah.net> wrote: > On 2018/05/01, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > I wanted to have fancyname@muc and serious-business@muc, pointing to > > > the same room. > > > > > > For this particular use case an alias mi

Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 Room (JID) aliases

On 1 May 2018 at 11:46, Maxime Buquet <p...@bouah.net> wrote: > On 2018/05/01, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 1 May 2018 at 00:43, Maxime Buquet <p...@bouah.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi Standards, > > > > > > I was wondering if it was possible

Re: [Standards] XEP-0363 (HTTP Upload): Privacy Considerations & Deletion

On 1 May 2018 at 09:28, Philipp Hörist wrote: > But even that is not very useful, Laws change all the time. > > At the same time you can write "Follow the local Laws" > > And why would this only concern HTTPUpload, Laws also concern all kind > of data that run over the

Re: [Standards] XEP-0363 (HTTP Upload): Privacy Considerations & Deletion

On 1 May 2018 at 09:03, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > While I'm fine with having a separate extension, I'm against the PR > itself. I think the behaviour is up to a local policy. We shouldn't make > default recommendations based on some local laws (GDPR). Because if we > do that,

Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 Room (JID) aliases

On 1 May 2018 at 00:43, Maxime Buquet wrote: > Hi Standards, > > I was wondering if it was possible to have aliases for a chatroom. > > Say I want to have foo@muc as a proper room, and bar@muc as an alias, > joining bar@muc would make me join foo@muc instead. > > Is there a

Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 Blocking Command: Matching JID

On 27 April 2018 at 08:34, Miguel Ángel Ortuño wrote: > One short question. When specifying a JID of the form *domain/resource, > *should > that block every single user of the form user*@domain/resource? *or only > the concrete* domain/resource *JID*? * > > The latter.

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

On 24 April 2018 at 10:29, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 19:11, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the typical negative vote from Council me

[Standards] Council Meeting Cancelled Tomorrow

Hi folks, I'm cancelling Council tomorrow. I've unfortunately had a meeting placed directly across the timeslot, and while I might be able to attend, I wouldn't be able to give my full attention. Meanwhile, neither Kev nor Georg can attend at all. Sorry! Dave.

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 16:46, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > -1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch > of > > XEPs are sitting in Proposed; rem

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

-1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch of XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the problem, just the fact we can see it. I'd really like a similar state during the CFE, since that's quite hard to manage. My preferred change would be to

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-04-11

On 12 April 2018 at 22:58, Sam Whited wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, at 16:41, Christian Schudt wrote: > > here some implementation for XEP 131 and 141 because you said „doesn’t > > have enough implementation“. > > In general I think "implementations" is meant to read

Re: [Standards] Removal of GC1.0 from MUC / XEP-0045

Thanks very much for doing this work. Without meaning to imply whether or not I agree with your conclusions, a couple of points of order: 1) While the Council can vote on the general principle, this has only the effect of a statement of principle or intent. As Chair, I'm happy to do this, I just

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-04-04

Thanks, I also direct your attention to item (2) on the agenda. :-) On 3 April 2018 at 21:59, Tedd Sterr wrote: > > We would also welcome a volunteer to take minutes (please - PLEASE - > reply to > > this message if you can take this on). > > Since I'll probably end up

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-04-04

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1500 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] XEP-0239 Support

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, 17:17 Tedd Sterr, wrote: > I think I've managed to successfully implement XEP-0239 - at least it > looks correct to me - however, I'm unable to find any servers that support > it. > Given its utility in low bandwidth cases, you might ask the Isode

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-28

On 29 March 2018 at 19:46, Tedd Sterr wrote: > *2) Minutes* > 'Dave' will do them this week.. > But I'm really glad I didn't because these are much better, thanks! ___ Standards mailing list Info:

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, 20:58 Goffi, wrote: > Le mercredi 28 mars 2018, 19:18:32 CEST Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > > Version 0.2.0 of XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)) has > > been released. > > > > Abstract: > > This specification defines a syntax and storage profile

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-21

Thanks! These are awesome! On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, 19:10 Tedd Sterr, wrote: > http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-03-21/#16:00:28 > > Dave warns he's on a train and may not manage to achieve all 4 of the > necessary Gs. > > *1) Roll Call* > Dave orders bacon and cheese, Georg

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW

I'm very interested to see if there has been any implementation of this specification at all. If there hasn't been, then of course it cannot advance, and I would in this case prefer to deprecate it. On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, 07:59 Jonas Wielicki, wrote: > The XEP Editor would

Re: [Standards] user is set online on input without unlocking the device

On 21 March 2018 at 10:37, wrote: > Hi all, > > I was having a discussion with one of our software vendors about their > implementation of the XMPP protocol. > > The discussion was about being "idle" or "away". In fact, their client > puts users in an "away" state after

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation

On 14 Mar 2018 17:30, "Jonas Wielicki" wrote: The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0122 before presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: 1. What software has

Re: [Standards] Review of XEP-0369: Mediated Information Exchange (MIX) v0.9.5

I agree with much of what is written here, so I'll concentrate on the parts I do not agree with. On 20 March 2018 at 16:34, Florian Schmaus wrote: > I am sceptical if using messages with type 'groupchat' is a good > decision. First, sending type 'groupchat' messages to bare

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-03-21

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1600 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 18 March 2018 at 14:07, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Hi > > I would like to see a disco feature for the compat mode (4.2). > This way I as a client developer know when it is safe to store > bookmarks using this method and this method only without loosing > legacy clients. >

[Standards] Bookmarks 2 : Age of Ultron

Folks, Jan-Carel Brand and I were idly discussing how complicated the interplay was between XEP-0048 1.0 (Historical/Active - single storage element, multiple bookmarks), XEP-0048 1.1 (Standards Track/Draft - single item, multiple bookmarks), XEP-0049 (multiple storage elements), and XEP-0223

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

On 16 Mar 2018 17:49, "Tedd Sterr" wrote: > If you ever intend to make XMPP adopted by masses, zillion of optional > features is actually a bad solution. XMPP is nothing but optional features! Beyond XMPP-CORE and XMPP-IM, everything else is optional. See

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

On 16 March 2018 at 15:58, Sam Whited wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018, at 09:20, Tedd Sterr wrote: >> For displaying coloured text on a badly contrasting background, e.g. >> white text on a white background, this can easily be handled >> intelligently by the receiving client:

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

On 16 March 2018 at 08:56, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > Hello! > > 16.03.2018, 11:31, "Ненахов Андрей" : > > > btw, I'm new here, what were the reasons for deprecating XEP-0071 ? > > It's a new tradition here: deprecate XEP not because it is bad,

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

On 16 March 2018 at 07:37, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Donnerstag, 15. März 2018 19:19:30 CET W. Martin Borgert wrote: >> Quoting Jonas Wielicki : >> > If you are doing graphics/text design/publishing with your IM client, >> > you’re doing it wrong, in my

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0092: Software Version

On 14 Mar 2018 17:29, "Jonas Wielicki" wrote: The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0092 before presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: 1. What software has

Re: [Standards] XEP-0283 Moved - Security and Usability

On 12 March 2018 at 14:44, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Freitag, 9. März 2018 18:16:25 CET Sam Whited wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 10:53, Georg Lukas wrote: >> > as part of Easy XMPP I wanted to have a way to completely migrate from >> > one account to another, or to be

Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

On 8 March 2018 at 16:18, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > The XEPs are not so widely implemented for the moment to care much about it. Actually, I think XEP-0393 has several implementations in widely deployed clients. I was considering suggesting a Last Call at this point. Dave.

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

e: >> On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:38:55 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: >> > Hello! >> > >> > 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net>: >> > The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based on >> > thes

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 8 March 2018 at 15:47, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > On 3/8/18 2:33 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On 7 March 2018 at 16:26, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: >>> On 3/5/18 3:37 PM, Christian Schudt wrote: >>>> Hi, >&

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

On 8 March 2018 at 10:54, Manuel Rubio wrote: > Hi guys, > > I usually only read to understand and learn but sometimes I head up and > freak out with some decision. I usually read RFC and when a new one is > released it supersedes, deprecates or obsoletes another one. But,

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 7 March 2018 at 16:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/5/18 3:37 PM, Christian Schudt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I find the whole passage „Discovering Capabilities“ of Serverless Messaging >> [1] a bit confusing. > > Are people still using this technology? In my experience, it

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

On 7 March 2018 at 18:35, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: > On 07.03.2018 19:14, Dave Cridland wrote: >> My votes: >> On 7 March 2018 at 17:47, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >>> 19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

On 8 March 2018 at 08:34, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > TL;DR: I conclude that the only argument is that XML is a bit more > secure (with possibly less possible holes, lol). So, as I thought, this > is purely a matter of personal choice and not a technical decision, > that's why

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

As an experiment, the actions from this meeting are at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601 On 7 March 2018 at 17:47, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > A short reminder on Council voting: > > Council can vote on anything - while a Call For Experience is not a > "

[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

A short reminder on Council voting: Council can vote on anything - while a Call For Experience is not a "Status Change" and thus does not require a vote, Council can still vote to ask the Editor to do one. Council members vote either +1 or 0 (the latter is often written signed, and may indicate a

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2018-03-07

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1600 UTC. The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability): * Github pull requests marked "Needs Council". * Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda * Random mails from Standards List *

Re: [Standards] Releases

Isn't this essentially what the compliance suites are for? On 4 March 2018 at 09:29, Gerion Entrup wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a user of XMPP and have very mixed experiences with different clients. > > There are clients that do very well and implement a lot of availabe XEPs, but

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2014-02-28

On 28 February 2018 at 15:20, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:05:32 +0000 > Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > >> 2014-02-28 > > Time machine? Apparently. No idea why I got that wrong.

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2014-02-28

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting today (Wednesday) at 1600 UTC. We organise the agenda on Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda and I (try to) send out the final agenda about 24 hours in advance. Agenda as follows: 1) Role Call 2) For fork's

[Standards] Council Minutes 2018-02-14

1) Roll Call - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-14/#16:01:10 Kev sent apologies. Daniel, Dave, Georg and Sam present. Kev shall vote on-list for everything. 2) Embarrassed shuffling as everyone realises it's St Valentine's Day and nobody thought to buy the Chair some nice flowers Georg

Re: [Standards] Council Agenda 2018-02-14

On 13 February 2018 at 18:55, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018, at 11:28, Dave Cridland wrote: >> Currently, anyone can ask the Council to vote, and the Council can >> simply do so. That's not really very helpful, and in practise we do >>

Re: [Standards] Council Agenda 2018-02-14

On 13 February 2018 at 17:20, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:04:36 +0000 > Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > >> 4) Deprecate XEP-0013 Flexible Offline Message Retrieval >> >> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

Re-reading this and other feedback, I'm going to push back on moving this to Draft until substantial improvements are done to Security Considerations in particular, and normative language use in general. On 12 December 2017 at 11:07, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > On 11 Dece

Re: [Standards] XEP Dependencies

On 8 February 2018 at 15:35, Sam Whited wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018, at 09:23, Tedd Sterr wrote: >> After noticing that XEP-0137 depends on "Stream Initiation" which is now >> deprecated, I checked through all XEPs for their dependencies and found >> the following: > >

[Standards] Council Minutes 2018-02-07

1) Roll Call - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-02-07/#16:02:01 Kev sent apologies. [Kev is to vote on-list for all items] All others present. Dave asked if anyone was willing to take minutes, and was a bit disappointed by the lack of response. He figures if he writes them badly enough someone

[Standards] Council Agenda 2018-02-07

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's regular meeting today at 1600 UTC. We organise the agenda on Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda and I (try to) send out the final agenda about 24 hours in advance. (Clearly not today though). Agenda as follows: 1) Roll Call

Re: [Standards] XEP-0198: Stream should be closed when 'h' value is to high

On 7 February 2018 at 08:55, Christian Schudt wrote: > This would follow the "Principle of Least Surprise", since terminating the > stream may seem a bit harsh for the user. > There are other surprises than just closing the stream, here. If the client acknowledges more

Re: [Standards] XEP-0198: Stream should be closed when 'h' value is to high

On 7 February 2018 at 08:20, Georg Lukas wrote: > The rationale behind current behavior is to be permissive in what we > accept, As one of the authors of much of the current behaviour, I can tell you that the rationale, such as it is, is that none of us thought about what to do

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0397 (Instant Stream Resumption)

On 22 January 2018 at 13:26, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:16:40 - > Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) wrote: > >> Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0397 (Instant Stream Resumption) has been >> released. > > Previous discussion has faded away, so I will

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0397 (Instant Stream Resumption)

On 22 January 2018 at 11:16, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0397.html So now this is published, I think I can list my (current) blockers for advancing it, as well as more general improvements that I think ought to be made, and suggestions for

[Standards] XMPP Council Spreadsheet of Unofficial Doom

Folks, For my personal benefit, I'm tracking voting on a Google spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AZ-Sna6OiRG--b-mJMKv3XXfrn3Nehm0kAtlyJvImL0/edit#gid=0 This is a public spreadsheet so you don't need a Google account to read it. I don't claim any accuracy, but I'll be

Re: [Standards] Instant Stream Resumption 0.0.5 ProtoXEP

On 19 January 2018 at 18:00, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 30.11.2017 21:10, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> I also like to ask Council to consider this ProtoXEP for acceptance. > > It's been 7 weeks. What the status of this? According yo the XMPP Council Spreadsheet Of Unofficial

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

On 19 January 2018 at 13:58, Stefan Haun wrote: >> While the >> previous Council failed to get this to vote despite a long period of >> Sam trying, > > > In my view, this is the key reason for being in the current situation. > Was this failure to get the vote in time addressed or

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

On 18 January 2018 at 20:43, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:05, Sam Whited wrote: >> In that case I am retracting the compliance suites > > As an interesting point of order, I’m not convinced that XEP-0001 allows the > Author to retract a

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

On 18 January 2018 at 15:43, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018, at 09:39, Dave Cridland wrote: >> To suggest that a Council Member voting -1 is stalling is a very >> serious charge, and suggests that they are deliberately misusing the

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

t;> On 18 Jan 2018, at 13:21, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 18 Jan 2018, at 11:05, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> 7) XEP-0387, Advance to Draft >> >>>> >> >>

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

On 18 January 2018 at 10:50, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: > On 18 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >> 1) Roll Call >> Kev sent apologies; his votes will be on list. > > Enclosed. > >> 3) ProtoXEP - User Invitations

Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

On 18 January 2018 at 10:07, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > Le jeudi 18 janvier 2018, 09:28:33 CET Dave Cridland a écrit : >> >> 6) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/557 >> >> Council decided to vote in the absence of further list discu

[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes, 2018-01-17

1) Roll Call Kev sent apologies; his votes will be on list. 2) Agenda bashing. Dave apologised for not having not the agenda in advance. 3) ProtoXEP - User Invitations Daniel and Sam on-list, Georg and Dave +1. Kev on-list. 4) XEP-0286, Advance to Active All present +1. Kev on-list. 5)

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

On 15 Jan 2018 07:02, "Jonas Wielicki" wrote: On Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 13:53:53 CET Tedd Sterr wrote: > As someone intending to develop a new modern client, I think a sensible (and > useful) suggestion would be to add something along the lines of "Legacy >

Re: [Standards] Proper SRV Record Fallback

On 12 January 2018 at 04:05, Travis Burtrum wrote: > Hello, > > My replies in-line as well. > > On 01/10/2018 03:20 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >> Hi Travis, >> >> Notes inline. >> >> On Montag, 8. Januar 2018 23:19:36 CET Travis Burtrum wrote: >>> First, what do docs say: >>>

[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes for 2017-01-10

1) Roll Call All present. 2) Agenda Some discussion of adding user-invite to the list, but (to me relief) it hadn't actually been announced on the list at the start of the meeting. 3) Did Everyone Have a Nice Christmas? ‎Kev‎: So, long story... ‎Ge0rG‎: Yes, without further detail.

[Standards] XMPP Council Meeting, 2018-01-10 1600Z

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's first meeting of 2018 tomorrow at 1600 UTC. We organise the agenda on Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda and I (try to) send out the final agenda about 24 hours in advance. Agenda as follows: 1) Roll Call 2) Discuss of how

Re: [Standards] Proper SRV Record Fallback

On 9 January 2018 at 10:09, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:03:24 +0000 > Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > >> What's the distinction between invalid TLS certificates and >> authentication failure? > > Another ques

Re: [Standards] Proper SRV Record Fallback

On 9 January 2018 at 04:19, Travis Burtrum wrote: > In my opinion, at least all of cannot-connect-to-port, non-XML, > not-proper-stream and invalid TLS cert should trigger a fallback to the > next highest priority SRV record. Everyone in the MUC seemed to agree > if

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Information eXchange (MIX))

On 3 January 2018 at 16:40, Steve Kille wrote: >> >> * §3.9.5 / §3.9.6 still seem massively awkward to me. When we >> >> implemented this, we implemented it such that it was a single node >> >> which administrators viewed differently to ordinary participants, and >> >> it

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Information eXchange (MIX))

On 3 January 2018 at 15:25, Steve Kille wrote: >> * In §3.2, item 15 is a prohibition on sharing MIX domains with end-user >> jids. >> While I suspect this could cause problems, I cannot immediately think what >> they might be - perhaps this is really a SHOULD NOT? >

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Information eXchange (MIX))

Some comments: * At the end of the Introduction, the spec says it is RECOMMENDED that MIX and MUC be served on distinct domains. I thought we'd arranged things such that MIX and MUC were now non-conflicting in protocol terms, and we could safely use the same domain (and thus the same address

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

On 11 December 2017 at 20:15, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 29 Nov 2017, at 19:16, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) > wrote: >> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on >> XEP-0363. >> >> Title: HTTP File Upload >> Abstract: >> This

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

On 12 December 2017 at 09:10, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > 2017-12-11 21:15 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith : >> On 29 Nov 2017, at 19:16, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) >> wrote: >>> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Information eXchange (MIX))

On 7 Dec 2017 15:52, "Georg Lukas" wrote: Hi Steve, thanks for your feedback. Please allow me some more remarks. * Steve Kille [2017-12-07 14:03]: > > | 13. Although some protocol is shared with MUC, MUC clients are not > > | interoperable with a MIX

Re: [Standards] [Council] 2017-11-29 XMPP Council Meeting Minutes

On 6 Dec 2017 13:28, "Kevin Smith" wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 16:42, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > Present: Dave (Chair), Kevin, Georg, Daniel, Sam > Minutes: Yours truly. > > Chat logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-11-29#15:55:08 > > > 1. XEP-0387

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

On 4 December 2017 at 10:37, Marcel Waldvogel wrote: > I think this conversation boils down to whether XML validation or the > Internet robustness principle ("Be conservative in what you send, be liberal > in what you accept"?) have higher precedence. Has this

[Standards] XMPP Council Meeting tomorrow

Folks, The XMPP Council will be holding it's first "business" meeting tomorrow at 1600 UTC. While we organise the agenda on Trello at https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda, there's quite a few old cards, so I'm proposing dedicating some of tomorrow's meeting to having a quick check to

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

On 20 November 2017 at 16:34, Konstantin Kozlov wrote: > It's too bad you didn't use your veto against that awful proto. > It don't even worth to waste XEP number for things like this one. Wait - which one did you want us to veto? Both? Neither?

Re: [Standards] XEP-0333: Chat Markers overhaul

On 16 November 2017 at 19:39, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > 2017-11-16 20:34 GMT+01:00 Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>: >> On 16 November 2017 at 19:22, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: >>> * Add a sender attribute to and that MUST &g

Re: [Standards] XEP-0333: Chat Markers overhaul

On 16 November 2017 at 19:22, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > * Add a sender attribute to and that MUST > contain the full JID of the person who requested the marker in group > chats. This doesn't make sense to me, which is probably my fault - could you expand on this? Dave.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >