1) Roll Call
Present: Kev, Dave, Daniel, Georg, Sam

2) Agenda Bashing
Dave apologises for not managing to do an agenda this week, and quickly makes 
something up: two CFEs, Kev's IM-NG protoXEP, and...
Jonas mentions the GC-1.0 abolishment vote (referencing Georg's email:
Georg adds that he also has a proposal for MUC self-ping.
Daniel wants to register the MUC config option for MAM, or least clarify the 
process for doing this.
Dave decides that should be plenty for one meeting.

3) Minute Taker
Either Tedd Sterr will do it or else Dave will.

Goerg mentions that the abolition of Pidgin is a Board agendum now.
Dave tries to figure out which CFEs have completed; Jonas says 0131, 0141, and 

4) Advance to Final XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata -

Kev: -1 (doesn't have the implementations, and other reasons)
Sam: -1 (doesn't feel like it fits a need, and doesn't have the 
implementations; we should kill it instead)
Dave: [on-list] (would like to ditch it, but it's referred to by other XEPs - 
0060 and 0149)
Daniel: -1 (actually implemented this once, but it's too niche)
Georg: -1 (had a tough fight against generic headers in 0363)

5) Advance to Final XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout -

Kev: -1 (would like to advance, but doesn't have the implementations)
Daniel: -1
Georg: -0
Sam: -1 (same reason as Kev; also forms is too complex already and we shouldn't 
shoehorn layout into document structure)
Dave: [on-list]

5') Advance to Final XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW -

Dave: -1 (implementations, and don't see a driving need for it)
Sam: -1 (have used this and have implementations, but it's underspecified)
Kev: -1
Daniel: 0
Georg: -1 (security issues of mixing different data classes into a compressed 

Daniel asks whether the security issues apply to compression in general, not 
specifically 0229; Georg confirms it applies to compression and thus 0229 by 
Sam recommends figuring out what to do with 0138 (Stream Compression) and then 
0229 could follow suit.
Daniel feels it's not right to 'punish' 0229, rather than 0138; Georg agrees 
and suggests adding 0138 to next week's agenda.

6) Adopt ProtoXEP: IM Routing-NG -
Kev recognises it will need to adapt with future decisions, but would like to 
get it under XSF control.
Georg is incredulous that he missed this submission.

Georg: [on-list]
Kev: +1
Dave: 0 (worry this might end up the bike shed of bike sheds, but not going to 
Daniel: +1 (to get it under XSF control; not sure I like it in its current form)
Sam: +1

7) Kill GC-1.0 (removal from XEP-0045)
Kev is OK with this in principle, as long as it results in an improvement.
Daniel requests a link to the PR; Kev & Georg clarify that it's a vote on the 
principle of the removal; Georg promises to prepare a PR should the vote be 
accepted (but not when that will be submitted.)
Kev is fine to see a PR, and would be OK with one that doesn't break anything, 
but isn't sure it's possible.
Dave is fine with removing bare presence as a mechanism for joining a chatroom, 
but worries that after losing sync existing clients may inadvertently join 
using GC-1.0, which would then perform a different action.
Georg asserts that two weeks of stats from and show that only 
one client didn't support MUC protocol; Dave says that's a different problem to 
the one he outlined.
Georg explains his preference is to make the user explicitly aware they're 
gone, rather than silently re-joining and possibly missing part of history. 
Dave counters that this presumes a client will gracefully handle an unexpected 
join rejection to a presence stanza they didn't think was a join in the first 
Georg hopes sane clients will handle a MUC presence error as no longer joined; 
Dave thinks this might be optimistic.
Georg attempts to clarify whether Kev is against this, and feels unable to meet 
Kev's exacting requirements without the ability to fix MUCs getting out of 
sync, which is what GC-1.0 covers up; Kev doesn't want to stop Georg from 
trying, but does want to ensure changes to a Draft XEP don't break anything 
(and expects it inevitably will.) Georg wonders whether sending an error to 
non-joined clients is considered breaking; Kev says it depends whether clients 
react sensibly.

Georg: +1
Sam: +1 (tentatively, on the general idea; can't hurt to see a PR)
Dave: +1 (keen to see what this would do in practice)
Daniel: +1
Kev: +1

8) AOB
Daniel queries the process for registering a new MUC config option, and the 
possibility of voting its addition to the registry; Dave is unsure but will 
look into it, and expects it's simply a matter of documenting it.
Georg wants a vote-on-principle for MUC self-ping 
suggesting it's less likely to break all clients (than alternatives.) Dave 
thinks it looks fine and could warrant a new XEP. Kev is fine with self-ping, 
but not with intercepting XEP-0199 pings; Georg and Dave clarify it's for own 
occupant only - Kev is OK with this. Daniel is OK with specifying that the 
server should handle self-ping.

9) Next Meeting
2018-04-18 1500 UTC works for all.

10) Close
Dave apologises again for the disorganised lack of agenda; Georg recommends 
that next time the lack of agenda be organised.
Thanks to all.

Standards mailing list

Reply via email to