Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management)

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:06, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: > > Version 0.4 of XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) has been released. > > Abstract: This document defines a protocol to query and control an archive of > messages stored on a server. > > Changelog: [See revision history] (ks/mw)

Re: [Standards] Carbons - inbound messages to bare jid

Right; this is what we intended the semantics to be. I think the other proposal is not a good idea. - m&m {mobile} On Apr 25, 2014 6:58 AM, "Thijs Alkemade" wrote: > > On 25 apr. 2014, at 13:32, Kim Alvefur wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > It has been brought up that my Carbons implementation does

Re: [Standards] Using .well-known/ to supplement XEP-0156

As a self-proclaimed member of the DNS anti-proliferation league, I fully support this. (-: I'd be happy to help out this together. It would help solve some problems we are facing. - m&m {mobile} On May 18, 2013 7:38 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > +1. Yes there is a registry at IANA, I can p

Re: [Standards] BOSH and legacy auth

If I recall correctly, this issue is about what to do when, after authentication, the client sends a restart=true, but the server does not support that (since there is no way to discover the server's version of support for XEP-0206). - m&m {mobile} On Feb 7, 2013 5:50 AM, "Stefan Strigler" wrote:

Re: [Standards] disco identity for "client/smartphone"?

On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > > > 30.11.2012, 12:26, "Kevin Smith" : >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> wrote: >> >>> Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice >>> that we have disco identities for "client/handheld

Re: [Standards] disco identity for "client/smartphone"?

So, I had always interpreted ”phone” to mean smartphone (-: I'm probably in the minority, though. - m&m (mobile; terse) On Nov 29, 2012 4:39 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice >

Re: [Standards] xep-027 encrypted filetransfers

On Oct 17, 2012, at 08:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/17/12 5:57 AM, Александр wrote: >> On Пятница, 12-окт-2012 00:46:57 Александр wrote: >> >> On Четверг, 11-окт-2012 23:33:48 Andreas Kuckartz wrote: >> >>> Александр: >> Hi all

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)

On Oct 10, 2012, at 13:47, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 9 October 2012 15:46, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >> Version 0.8 of XEP-0280 (Message Carbons) has been released. >> >> Abstract: In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a >> conversation, outbound messages are carbon-copied

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

what a > "TTY" is, without expanding the obsolete acronym not used in the deaf > community. Just like RADAR and SONAR, TTY is no longer considered an > acronym in general use. > > Government legislation about TTY > http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/html/tech

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 23, 2012, at 00:51, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > On 2012-08-23 00:34, Matthew Miller wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:32, Gunnar Hellström wrote: >

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0297 (Stanza Forwarding)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 23, 2012, at 07:07, Matthew Wild wrote: > Hi Jefry, > > Thanks for the feedback. > > On 23 August 2012 03:52, Jefry Lagrange wrote: >> I don't think the use case with message is enough. It would be more >> clear if it had an use case with a

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:33, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: > >> What would help most to alleviate this discussion further is to include an >> authoritative citation. >

[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes -- 2012-08-22T15:00:00Z

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Begin forwarded message: > From: Matthew Miller > Date: August 22, 2012 16:38:53 MDT > To: XMPP Council > Subject: Minutes -- 2012-08-22T15:00:00Z > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > COUNCIL MEETING

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:32, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > /The US Access Board has the following definition in its latest proposal for > Accessible procurement, Section 508. E.103.4 > /http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm > / > TTY.

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:51, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > > On 2012-08-22 23:35, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >> agree >> >> You can say >> >> TTY was derived from Teletypewriter - a device originally used by people who >> are deaf to communicate. But t

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-- >> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. >> Director Trace R&D Center >> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering >> and Biomedical Engineering >> University of Wisconsin-Madison >> >> On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Gunnar Hellström >

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:28, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > I do not think expansion of TTY to Teletypewriter is a good idea. That tends > to mean the other use of the term TTY, the device that was often used as a > computer operator console terminal a l

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 14:42, Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> * Teletypewriter (TTY) and Text Device for the Deaf (TDD) telephones >> [citations recommended] > > Consulted w

Re: [Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 13:35, Mark Rejhon wrote: > Hello Matthew, > > Thanks for your comments! > I eager await your ongoing comments. Just some brief reply: > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: &

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 22, 2012, at 13:56, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > On 8/22/12 10:33 AM, "Matthew Miller" wrote: > >> I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text >> transform ought to be disabl

[Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'll slowly be commenting mostly on a section-by-section basis. These are my comments regarding section 1 of XEP-0301: Real-Time Text. There might be some mention of these earlier, but I've lost track. If already addressed previously, then please

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text transform ought to be disabled/bypassed. - - m&m Matthew A. Miller On Aug 22, 2012, at 02:35, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 08/22/2012 02:31 AM, Joe Hilde

Re: [Standards] XEP-296 problem?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 09:45, Yann Leboulanger wrote: > Hi, > > I was wonder what should I do in this situation: > user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go from > A/r1 to B/r1. > > user B connects a second client with re

Re: [Standards] XEP-296 problem?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 09:49, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger wrote: >> Same thing if B just go away or na? so we cannot continue en encrypted >> conversation if we go away? > > Conversations with B shouldn't be

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 15, 2012, at 08:54, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > >>> In fact, I'd argue that this spec is a technical solution to a social >>> problem >> >> I note, after drafting many more acerbic replies, th

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 -- embedding small illustrative animated GIF into spec

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have concerns embedding something into a document that reduces its printability. As archaic as this sounds, I often print specifications in order to review them! That said, I'm not immediately opposed to it, but would approach with caution. The

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)- Interop with XEP 0301 RTT

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 20, 2012, at 00:45, Mark Rejhon wrote: > About the agreed XEP-0308 and XEP-0301 compatibility: > I would like to amend the list of advantages that I sent earlier, due to > the improved retroactive editing protocol that is already agreed betwee

Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 Fallback Mechanism of Determining Support (Accessibility)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 11, 2012, at 14:37, Mark Rejhon wrote: > ETA is Monday but I will try to accelerate the changes to allow an > additional interirm version for reviewers like you. > > It is just mostly grammatical and wording choices, and section refinements >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Data Forms XML Element

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/20/12 8:42 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 6/20/12 6:03 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: >>> On 06/20/2012 01:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/19/12 10:17 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote

[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes - 2012-06-20T15:00:00Z

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Matthew Miller > Date: June 20, 2012 10:53:28 MDT > To: XMPP Council > Subject: Minutes - 2012-06-20T15:00:00Z > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Meeting

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Data Forms XML Element

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The council as decided not to accept the proposal at this time. The primary objections to date are: * Malformed XML - As noted further in this thread, the name "xml" is not well-formed XML, and MUST be changed to something that is well-formed. -

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0047 (In-Band Bytestreams) to Final

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 12, 2012, at 13:57, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/12/12 1:44 PM, Justin Karneges wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:10:30 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 5/24/12 8:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/24/12 1:01 AM, Sergey Dobrov

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 10:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/29/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> On 29 May 2012 17:12, Philipp Hancke wrote: XEP-0186 move to Draft so that we can deprecate XEP-0018 and XEP-0126. Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> I'd note that in 3.1.1. the server MUST NOT

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 10:04, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On May 29, 2012, at 09:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we >>> might

Re: [Standards] invisibility

On May 29, 2012, at 09:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we > might as well do it right. > > Some clients and servers use XEP-0018, but it violates the core XMPP > specs, which seems like a bad idea. > > Some clients and server use

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0198 (Stream Management)

On May 22, 2012, at 15:10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/22/12 3:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On May 22, 2012, at 14:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> On 5/21/12 1:21 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Philipp

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0198 (Stream Management)

On May 22, 2012, at 14:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/21/12 1:21 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> >>> old thread alert... >>> Version 1.3 of XEP-0198 (Stream Management) has been released. >>> >>> I implemented 0198 for s2s and am in general

Re: [Standards] XEP-0068 & "x-"

From the original text, I think it's important to namespace, and I think it's important to agree how a namespace is included in the field name. Precisely how the namespace substring is formatted is less important; it can be a URI, a URN, a Java reverse-domain, or something else. On May 15, 20

Re: [Standards] XMPP WG meeting this week

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 28, 2012, at 14:18, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> The IETF’s XMPP Working Group will hold an in-person meeting this week >> at IETF

[Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2012-02-08T16:00:00Z

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Matthew Miller > Date: February 8, 2012 10:27:26 MST > To: XMPP Council > Subject: Minutes 2012-02-08T16:00:00Z > > [room log: <http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120208/>] > > START > > 1) Roll Call > ==

Re: [Standards] XEP-0096 (SI File Transfer): Where is a fallback mechanism described?

On Jan 12, 2012, at 02:56, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > On 01/12/2012 03:57 PM, Marcus Lundblad wrote: >> tor 2012-01-12 klockan 15:47 +0700 skrev Sergey Dobrov: >>> Hello, I am reading the XEP-96 and see in the requirements section: >>> "Enable seamless file transfer, including fall-back mechanisms as

Re: [Standards] Council Decision on DMUC3 Proto-XEP

On Jan 9, 2012, at 09:06, Wayne Franklin wrote: > Matthew, > > Sorry to hear that you didn't see the advantages to our approach. We respect > the decision of the council and will provide feedback to XEP-0289. Does this > mean that the other DMUC specs are out of the running? > I personally

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 4, 2012, at 03:57, Kevin Smith wrote: > I think we should be avoiding mandating (at least non-security > critical) UI features - I think this is a simple tweak from normative > 'SHOULD' to 'is suggested' or similar. > The more I ponder this, the more I think there needs to be some manda

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 09:03, Mike Wacker wrote: > On 1/5/2012 7:43 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:41, Mike Wacker wrote: >> >>> On 1/5/2012 7:31 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: >>>> On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: >>>> >

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:41, Mike Wacker wrote: > On 1/5/2012 7:31 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: >> >> >>> Let me suggest a bolder idea. Why do we need to wrap the carbons using >>> Message Forwarding at all

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 5, 2012, at 08:24, Mike Wacker wrote: > Let me suggest a bolder idea. Why do we need to wrap the carbons using > Message Forwarding at all instead of just delivering the message stanzas as > is? You will only receive these additional message carbons if your client > supports carbons an

Re: [Standards] Carbons

On Jan 4, 2012, at 03:57, Kevin Smith wrote: > I've just been reading through the current version of > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html and have a couple of > comments: > > In example 14, we have: > from='ro...@example.net' > to='ro...@example.net/home' > type='c

Re: [Standards] Use of Message Forwarding in other XEPs

On Jan 4, 2012, at 07:25, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jan 4 14:22:30 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: >> I think it'd be good to pick something and use it consistently, >> whatever that thing is. > > I'd like to paint it green. > Only if you know the Mayor of Boston. - m&m

Re: [Standards] Use of Message Forwarding in other XEPs

On Jan 4, 2012, at 05:46, Kim Alvefur wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:24 +, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> On Wed Jan 4 11:12:56 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> Isn't the providing no information at all, here? (Not that it >>> ever was)