[Standards] Council Meeting 2016-09-21

2016-09-21 Thread Sam Whited
# 2016-09-21 Council Meeting Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2016-09-21#15:15:30 ## Roll call - Lance (chairing) - MattJ - Dave Cridland - Tobias - Lance notes that Peter will be absent ## Date of next 2016-09-28 15:15:00 UTC ## AOB ### OMEMO Axolotl / Olm - Dave Cridland

Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

2016-09-21 Thread Steve Kille
> -Original Message- > From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Dave > Cridland > Sent: 21 September 2016 15:58 > To: XMPP Standards > Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user > preferences > > On 21 September 2016 at 14:32,

Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

2016-09-21 Thread Dave Cridland
On 21 September 2016 at 14:32, Steve Kille wrote: > I have not been able to think of any additional sensible per-user > preferences. Users might well want to control whether they receive private messages through the MIX or not. In general, unless there's a compelling

[Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user preferences

2016-09-21 Thread Steve Kille
MIX channel participants have the option to configure preferences for JID visibility.There are some comments on the spec in this area, which I aim to address soon. The current specification is formulated so that an implementation can provide implementation specific per-user preferences, which

[Standards] Update to XEP-0369 (MIX) Changes for version 0.4

2016-09-21 Thread Steve Kille
There are a number of changes in 0.4 version of MIX 1. Clarification of MIX Proxy concept. There was useful discussion on the XSF room, which I have tried to reflect in the document. 2. Clarification of a number of node definitions. 3. Make all nodes optional. Discussion in the XSF room

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Message Archiving

2016-09-21 Thread Florian Schmaus
think the major difference is that there is very likely consensus that a disclaimer should be added to Message Archiving, while I don't think that's also true for deprecating it. I also believe that we should do more to guide users towards the "encouraged" protocols. We have this situation not