Sam, To repeat what I said in the Council MUC: Thanks for these minutes; they're really excellent, and greatly appreciated.
Dave. On 9 December 2015 at 16:42, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sam Whited <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:40 AM > Subject: 2015-12-09 Meeting Minutes > To: [email protected] > > > # 2015-12-09 Council Meeting > > Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2015-12-09/#16:00:10 > > ## Roll call > > - Lance > - Dave > - PSA > - Tobias > - MattJ > > > ## ProtoXEP Message Attaching: Accept as Experimental > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/attachto.html > > - +1 MattJ > - +1 Lance > - +1 psa > - +1 Tobias > - +1 Dave > > > ## ProtoXEP Quality of Service: Accept as Experimental > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/qos.html > > - -1 Dave > - -1 MattJ > - -1 Lance > - Tobias on list > > - PSA notes that ensuring exactly once delivery is hard > - MattJ notes that MQTT does it, but is not federated > > > ## ProtoXEP SRV records for XMPP over TLS: Accept as Experimental > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/tls-srv.html > > - +1 Dave > - +1 Lance > - +1 PSA > - +1 Tobias > - +1 MattJ > > - Lance notes that it's "in that awkward spot between XEP [and] RFC" > - PSA notes that SASL and STARTTLS started as XEPs and then became RFCs > > > ## ProtoXEP Multi-User Chat Light: Accept as Experimental > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-light.html > > - MattJ on list > - Tobias on list > - PSA on list > - Dave on list > - Lance on list > > - Dave notes that it's a minimalist MUC implementation not based on > PubSub that > rejects presence entirely rather than making it optional (and is > leaning > towards -1) > - Lance notes that it requires roster items for rooms to be in a > particular > group > > > ## XEP-0138: Update to 2.1 > > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/100 > > - +1 Tobias > - +1 PSA > - +1 MattJ (pending links and better explanation of chosen plaintext > attacks) > > - Dave notes that not returning the original stanza in errors would > probably do > the same thing > - Sam wonders if it should be worth withdrawing the PR and waiting on a > more > comprehensive review of 0138? > - PSA notes that he's been saying that all along > - MattJ agrees > > Action item: > > - Identify who is qualified to do a security audit of XEP-0138 > > ## Move XEP-0301 to Final > > - +1 Dave > - PSA wonders if their are fixes on the way, Lance tables discussion until > next > week > > ## Date of next > > SBTSBC? > > - MattJ: nwwfm > - Tobias: wfm > > Aside: Note taker is confused and doesn't know what any of this means. > > ## AOB > > None > > -- > Sam Whited > pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 > https://blog.samwhited.com > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
