Re: [Standards] [Council] Council Meeting 2016-08-24

2016-09-02 Thread Tobias Markmann
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I think, with Peter's +1 on the standards list thread, that makes a > full house, doesn't it? > Yes. https://trello.com/c/eS2rJ3uY/117-accept-eme-http-xmpp-org-extensions-inbox-eme-html

Re: [Standards] [Council] Council Meeting 2016-08-24

2016-09-02 Thread Dave Cridland
On 2 September 2016 at 12:52, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 29 August 2016 at 13:16, Tobias Markmann wrote: >> # 2016-08-24 Council Meeting >> >> Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2016-08-24/#15:15:10 >> >> ## Roll call >> >> - Lance (chairing) >> -

Re: [Standards] MIX

2016-09-02 Thread Steve Kille
Dave, There have been a number of changes in the MIX spec, moving from 0.2 (which you commented on) to 0.2.3, which has a number of updates, primarily arising from Git-driven changes from Link Mauve and Sam Whited, and associated discussion. There have been a number of email comments (yours

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

2016-09-02 Thread Steve Kille
Florian, > > > > A key design decision of MIX was to separate Presence and Messages. > Users can register presence for multiple clients or none at all. Another > decision was to make membership long term, so that messages get sent > irrespective of presence. A consequence of this is that

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

2016-09-02 Thread Steve Kille
Georg, I took an editorial action in my response to this message > > 3. Message tracking > > === > > > > Initially, MIX messages were going to be handled like pubsub events. > > The text in §5.1.11 still claims so (I suppose this is an overlooked > > remnant). [Steve Kille]

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

2016-09-02 Thread Georg Lukas
Hey Steve, thanks for keeping up with all our requests :) * Steve Kille [2016-09-02 18:06]: > > A consequence of this is that messages HAVE to go to the bare JID. > > > > I suggest that this very rationale and the related fundamental design > > decision > > of MIX

Re: [Standards] FLOW's suggested abstract for MIX

2016-09-02 Thread Steve Kille
Florian. I've considered your comments on the abstract. Agree with your proposal to shorten and have used your text as input. New abstract and fixes noted in previous message have been pushed Thanks for all your input Steve > -Original Message- > From: Steve Kille

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

2016-09-02 Thread Georg Lukas
Hello again, * Dave Cridland [2016-08-23 23:09]: [MUC JID reference in a MIX] > I think it's needed to allow a MIX client to communicate a MUC jid to > another client. Yes, unless the MUC JID is the primary (or the only) identifier of the chat room, we need two-way references

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Message Encryption

2016-09-02 Thread Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
Hi, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:40:24PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: […] > > The name metadata should either be qualified by a lang or simply be > > removed. I feel like removing is the right thing: Clients/Libraries > > either know the encryption mechanism by its namespace, and are possible >

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

2016-09-02 Thread Dave Cridland
On 2 September 2016 at 10:59, Georg Lukas wrote: > Hello again, > > * Dave Cridland [2016-08-23 23:09]: > [MUC JID reference in a MIX] >> I think it's needed to allow a MIX client to communicate a MUC jid to >> another client. > > Yes, unless the MUC JID is the