Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 12:25, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:07 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > I'm afraid they'd be mistaken in this belief. > > Developers are bad, mmmkay. Not mad, but lazy. This is o

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 12:17, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:51:28 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > What else would you call it? > > You can stop bugtracker for your project then. There are only trolls. >

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 09:22, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:45:29 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > If no-one is prepared to say why they won't do this but continues to > > complain about the absenc

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 09:35, Christian Schudt wrote: > My explanation: Most developers just don't want to write specifications. > They don't consider it to be their job. I'm afraid they'd be mistaken in this belief. Note that we are not talking about requirements

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 08:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:05:04 +0200 > Ralph Meijer wrote: > > > Can you explain why people wanting to implement some feature couldn't > > (begin to) write a XEP? > > I have some ideas why they don't do this.

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 10:54, Vitaly Takmazov wrote: > > who complain about specs they want not existing believe is responsible > for doing this for them at no cost, and why? > Hi from 2015! Hey there! > There are number of options: > 1) Get an existing protocol/library

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 13:42, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:03:52 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > I'm happy with people reporting bugs against my open source projects. > > When they come back and ask

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 14:28, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:48:34 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > What is your suggested solution to making XMPP easier to contribute > > to? > > This is a very funny

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 15:54, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:39:38 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > On 12 October 2015 at 14:28, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: [Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

On 12 October 2015 at 16:20, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:04:43 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > > > "We want to deprecate Privacy Lists because we think it's a bad spec." > > "You'll have to

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

On 2 September 2015 at 12:55, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > (Matthew Miller prodded me that I hadn't replied to this). > > On 18 August 2015 at 12:39, Ben Langfeld <b...@langfeld.me> wrote: > >> On 18 August 2015 at 08:13, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

On 18 August 2015 at 08:13, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On 17 August 2015 at 20:15, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: On 17 August 2015 at 13:44, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: On 14 Aug 2015, at 20:11, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: 2) 5.1 (Actors

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

On 17 August 2015 at 13:44, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: On 14 Aug 2015, at 20:11, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: 2) 5.1 (Actors) places requirements that these JIDs for components/mixers can only be only be under subdomains - why is this? AFAIK, this is the only part

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

On 14 August 2015 at 06:26, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: Again, Sorry Ben that I didn’t receive this mail at the time. Hey Kevin! I’ve elided lots of points that seem addressed (thanks). On 21 Jun 2015, at 20:53, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: 1) Does leading

Re: [Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call (Proposed)

Seconded. On 11 August 2015 at 14:30, Sam Whited s...@samwhited.com wrote: Hi all, I'd like to propose that the Council vote to move XEP-0280: Message Carbons into last call (the Proposed State), and then hopefully into draft afterwards. The XEP has been sitting dormant since it was last

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

I addressed every single one of your comments and provided feedback in this thread. Perhaps you could take a look at those comments and individual changes? I most certainly did not ignore the vast majority of your comments as this appears to claim. On 30 July 2015 at 07:59, Kevin Smith

Re: [Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes 2015-07-08

Could I please put Rayo back on the agenda for next week? I believe I have addressed all of the concerns that have been published about it and relevant changes have been submitted. If there's anything that you guys are waiting on from me, please just shout. On 8 July 2015 at 12:09, Kevin Smith

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

On 16 June 2015 at 09:26, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: Sorry this is terribly late - I’ve been reviewing the Rayo XEP prior to voting on Draft, and I had a couple of questions/comments. This only covers the first half of the XEP (up to the end of section 6), as it seemed more

Re: [Standards] Rayo feedback.

Thanks for these notes, Kevin. I'll address them by the weekend. On 16 June 2015 at 09:26, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: Sorry this is terribly late - I’ve been reviewing the Rayo XEP prior to voting on Draft, and I had a couple of questions/comments. This only covers the first

Re: [Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes 2015-05-27

Hey Kevin, On 28 May 2015 at 08:48, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: On 28 May 2015, at 13:36, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: Did the Rayo spec get an advancement decision since votes on-list from the last meeting? Hi Ben. Yes, I’ve put a -1 on it pending further discussion

Re: [Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes 2015-05-27

Did the Rayo spec get an advancement decision since votes on-list from the last meeting? On 28 May 2015 at 06:11, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote: FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Smith Subject: [Council] Minutes 2015-05-27 Date: 28 May 2015 11:10:24 BST To: XMPP

Re: [Standards] MAM ids on new messages to prevent deduping

Leaving backward compatibility concerns aside, I'd like to see globally unique message IDs made compulsory instead of optional and to use the original message ID as the MAM ID. This is what we are doing in our closed-client environment and it works well, but sacrifices compatibility with other

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

this time, though (-: XEP-143 briefly goes over it, but I think we'll need to reexamine and update that document soon. - -- - - mm Matthew A. Miller http://goo.gl/LK55L On 4/29/15 12:51 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote: How would you like those submitting? The link is to a git patch which

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

this time, though (-: XEP-143 briefly goes over it, but I think we'll need to reexamine and update that document soon. - -- - - mm Matthew A. Miller http://goo.gl/LK55L On 4/29/15 12:51 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote: How would you like those submitting? The link is to a git patch which

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

How would you like those submitting? The link is to a git patch which can be applied upstream. On 29 April 2015 at 12:26, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote: Am 17.04.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Ben Langfeld: Changes suggested to this specification in this thread, with the exception

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

, Ben On 17 April 2015 at 15:48, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: Changes suggested to this specification in this thread, with the exception of those deferred to v2, are available at https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/compare/1b4ee7f...feature/rayo.patch On 6 April 2015 at 11:26, XMPP Extensions

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

Changes suggested to this specification in this thread, with the exception of those deferred to v2, are available at https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/compare/1b4ee7f...feature/rayo.patch On 6 April 2015 at 11:26, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: This message constitutes notice of a

Re: [Standards] Marking up messages with metadata and XEP-0071

On 10 April 2015 at 13:01, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On 9 April 2015 at 23:24, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: On 9 April 2015 at 16:58, Florian Schmaus f...@geekplace.eu wrote: On 09.04.2015 18:59, Ben Langfeld wrote: Florian, my concerns with your approach are twofold

Re: [Standards] Marking up messages with metadata and XEP-0071

Florian, my concerns with your approach are twofold: 1. It is complicated and is not markup in the sense that is used by XML, HTML, SSML, etc. Being abstracted means a complicated association step. 2. It does not accurately correlate. Imagine this example: message… bodyHi Joe Bloggs. How are

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

On 6 April 2015 at 15:10, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote: Am 06.04.2015 um 07:26 schrieb XMPP Extensions Editor: This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0327 (Rayo). Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for the

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)

Disclosure: I'm the author of this spec. On 6 April 2015 at 11:26, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0327 (Rayo). Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for the third-party control of

Re: [Standards] Advancing XEP-0280 Carbons

Seconded. On 1 April 2015 at 13:37, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: Folks, Matthew Miller and Joe Hildebrand's Carbons XEP has been unchanged for 18 months, and represents a useful and well-deployed protocol, implemented in most (if not all) of the mainstream servers. Mobile and

[Standards] XEP-0327: Rayo - advancement to Draft

We have now come to a point where this protocol has stabilised, and I would like to propose that it begin the process of moving from Experimental to Draft. The protocol is being used in various production scenarios supporting real-world applications. This would be my first XEP to get to this

Re: [Standards] XEP or not to XEP

On 14 January 2015 at 00:57, David Bolack dbol...@missingworldsmedia.com wrote: On Monday, January 12, 2015 03:14 EST, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: In general, proposing a XEP that's rejected because it's a terrible idea adds more value than doing something that's a terrible

Re: [Standards] Minutes 20140604

Might Rayo Clustering be published soon? Is there a requirement for extra manpower in the editor work group? On 4 June 2014 12:32, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote: Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2014-06-04/ 1) Roll call Lance, Tobias, MattJ, Fippo present. Kev absent with

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 20140521

On 23 May 2014 06:43, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote: FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: Kevin Smith Date: Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:42 AM Subject: Minutes 20140521 To: XMPP Council Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2014-05-21/ 1) Roll call Lance, Matt, Kev

Re: [Standards] -1 on rayo-clustering (was: Re: [Council] Minutes 2014-04-23)

On 24 April 2014 06:15, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote: Am 24.04.2014 10:58, schrieb Kevin Smith: Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2014-04-23/ [...] 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/rayo-clustering.html Accept as Experimental Lance/Philipp to post their

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2014-04-23

Did the vote not already fall in favour of accepting rayo-clustering as experimental? I've additionally responded to concerns about the motivation for its standardisation in the thread on that subject, and I feel the argument holds. On 2 May 2014 10:45, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Rayo Clustering

The idea is that implementations of gateways and nodes may be completed independently. There certainly is a requirement for Supplier A's gateway to be used with Supplier B's nodes, however. This requires the protocol between nodes and gateways to be specified. It is intended that nodes might

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0206 (XMPP Over BOSH)

There's a selection of places where the diff shows references to RFCs being removed leaving incomplete sentences here. I think this needs another rev. On 9 April 2014 17:41, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: Version 1.4 of XEP-0206 (XMPP Over BOSH) has been released. Abstract:

Re: [Standards] Updates to Rayo specifications

Is there anything else I need to do to have this published? On 27 February 2014 20:31, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: Thanks, Ben. We have a new Editor Team, so this will provide good practice for them. :-) On 2/27/14, 2:42 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote: Please publish

Re: [Standards] Last connection time of friend

The point here is that this is a normative recommendation against doing presence probes, because there's often a better way to achieve the result. It is not denying you the option of doing so. On 3 March 2014 13:47, Peter Waher peter.wa...@clayster.com wrote: Hello Dave Thanks for the

[Standards] Updates to Rayo specifications

/rayo for you to fetch changes up to 58ab6d033e17c15791301ca4a1bb0c993dced826: XEP-0342: Proper linking (2014-02-27 18:39:01 -0300) Ben Langfeld (5): Suggest timestamping Rayo events RAYO: Allow specifying a call URI

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2013-11-20

There has been an update to the CPA spec in the meantime. The latest version is available at https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/blob/rayo/extensions/inbox/rayo-cpa.xml On 13 January 2014 13:43, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: It's now been rather a long time and these specs have not been

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2013-11-20

Thanks Peter! :) On 14 January 2014 15:53, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: That's my fault. I hope the yet-to-be-formed editorial team will not miss such things. I'll take care of that now. On 1/14/14 7:29 AM, Ben Langfeld wrote: There has been an update to the CPA spec

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2013-11-20

:17, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.me wrote: It's now three weeks since this meeting. I havn't seen a vote from Tobias on rayo-fax, or either of rayo-fax and rayo-cpa being published. Is there anything blocking

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Rayo Fax

I've fixed all of Philipp's suggestions and the latest versions of the proposed specs can be found at the links below. https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/blob/rayo/extensions/inbox/rayo-cpa.xml https://github.com/rayo/xmpp/blob/rayo/extensions/inbox/rayo-fax.xml As for the issue with suspected

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Rayo Fax

On 15 November 2013 08:12, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote: Quick review: The links (like Rayo CPA in section 2 which should be updated after publication of that spec) seem broken, in particular internal ones like the receivefax/ one. Can you fix them before publication? I

[Standards] XEP-0327: Rayo

, along with any suggestions for improvement. This is the first XEP that I've written and it's a big one... Regards, Ben Langfeld

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2013-04-24T15:00:00Z

Thanks Peter! Regards, Ben Langfeld On 6 May 2013 23:32, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: On 5/6/13 4:37 PM, Ben Langfeld wrote: On 24 April 2013 12:30, Matt Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net mailto:linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: FYI Begin forwarded message

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2013-04-24T15:00:00Z

On 24 April 2013 12:30, Matt Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote: FYI Begin forwarded message: From: Matt Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net Subject: Minutes 2013-04-24T15:00:00Z Date: April 24, 2013 9:29:48 AM MDT To: XMPP Council coun...@xmpp.org Room Logs:

[Standards] XEP examples containing CDATA

allow nested CDATA. What's the standard procedure for handling this case? Regards, Ben Langfeld

Re: [Standards] long specs

I like the idea of splitting out non-essential elements of XEP-0045 into separate documents. I can then say my code fully implements MUC-basic, but not MUC-admin, etc. As for the versioning issue. Why not have XEPs follow semver? Regards, Ben Langfeld On 15 February 2012 20:07, Peter Saint

[Standards] Jingle specification bug - missing error condition

if it is the schema or the example which is correct. If someone can nudge me in the right direction, I can get a patch submitted today. Regards, Ben Langfeld

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Last Message Correction

I've been meaning to do this for a while. +1 One suggestion though: A modification to the wording from last message to previous message. Regards, Ben Langfeld On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:49 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote: The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Last Message Correction

Because it's more general. Last implies that it's not possible to modify prior messages, which is not explicitly prohibited by the specification, nor should it be. For that reason, last is not as clear as previous, and is perhaps even confusing. Regards, Ben Langfeld On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8