XSF logo XMPP Council - 2019-08-28


  1. Reventlov has left
  2. Reventlov has joined
  3. Reventlov has left
  4. Reventlov has joined
  5. Reventlov has left
  6. Reventlov has joined
  7. Reventlov has left
  8. Reventlov has joined
  9. Tobias has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. Reventlov has left
  12. Reventlov has joined
  13. lnj has joined
  14. lnj has left
  15. Reventlov has left
  16. Reventlov has joined
  17. Reventlov has left
  18. Reventlov has joined
  19. Reventlov has left
  20. Reventlov has joined
  21. lnj has joined
  22. lnj has left
  23. lnj has joined
  24. lnj has left
  25. debacle has joined
  26. Reventlov has left
  27. debacle has left
  28. Reventlov has joined
  29. Kev Migraine, so very likely not about this afternoon.
  30. Ge0rG has joined
  31. Ge0rG Looks like I'll be in a train station at meeting time today, only equipped with my phone.
  32. jonas’ .
  33. dwd Afternoon. This doesn't look promising, then.
  34. Ge0rG I'd still like a meeting to happen, even if only for the sake of having a real meeting after two misses
  35. pep. Link Mauve has been serverless for a few days. He might show up under a jabberfr jid, or not.
  36. Ge0rG Also my AOBs are still largely unresolved. I'm thinking of making message errors a first class citizen, and of The Right Way to reference messages.
  37. Ge0rG pep.: maybe we need to send a push notification?
  38. dwd OK, we'll give it a shot.
  39. dwd 1) Roll Call
  40. pep. Ge0rG: he doesn't run android nor iOS
  41. jonas’ I’m here
  42. Ge0rG pep.: send a direct message to his jabberfr JID please.
  43. pep. (Nor any other OS that provides this kind of things, I assume. I'm gone now)
  44. dwd OK, we have three, so that counts for Quorum purposes.
  45. Ge0rG is there, more or less
  46. pep. I poked him.
  47. dwd So we can hold a meeting if we want. Do we want?
  48. Ge0rG dwd: are there any new things to vote on?
  49. dwd Well, let's:
  50. dwd 2) AGenda Bashing
  51. Ge0rG The agenda is great!
  52. dwd I didn't get to an agenda this week, sorry. I'm also unaware of anything in particular, though I believe there was soething in Last Call which has - presumably - become due for a vote.
  53. jonas’ yeah
  54. jonas’ no feedback though
  55. Ge0rG Didn't we have something regarding jingle?
  56. jonas’ XEP-0300 and XEP-0353
  57. Ge0rG In LC, that is
  58. jonas’ yes, Jnigle Message Initiation (XEP-0353)
  59. Ge0rG Was that the one where we requested feedback from the informal Jingle SIG?
  60. Ge0rG jonas’: I had feedback on Table 1 in 0300
  61. Ge0rG I'm not sure if that went to standards, though
  62. jonas’ other than that, I’m not aware of anything to vote on
  63. dwd OK, so yes, indeed, both those Last Calls are long-since expired. We can do a vote on both.
  64. dwd 3) Current Activity
  65. dwd I don't think we've anything currently in Last Call or anything? I did notice a bunch of updated XEPs though.
  66. mathieui link mauve is coming, fyi, I pinged him by sms
  67. dwd jonas’, Anything of note here?
  68. jonas’ the official release of that new XEP
  69. jonas’ XEP-0421
  70. jonas’ XEP-0421: Anonymous unique occupant identifiers for MUCs
  71. linkmauve has joined
  72. linkmauve Sorry I'm late!
  73. jonas’ and obsoletion of the '18 compliance suites
  74. dwd Right, thanks.
  75. dwd 4) Items for a vote.
  76. dwd a) XEP-0300 to DRAFT
  77. Ge0rG On list
  78. jonas’ I think I’m +1
  79. dwd I think I'm +1 here.
  80. jonas’ unless Ge0rG tells me a good reason not to be with his Table 1 feedback ;)
  81. Ge0rG jonas’: I think that table doesn't belong into 0300, but into an informational XEP or a registry
  82. dwd Ge0rG, I think the ideal solution would be to go register the names with IANA, actually.
  83. jonas’ Ge0rG, one could infer that table to refer to the registry which belongs to that xep
  84. Ge0rG dwd: wasn't the reason for that table that IANA isn't there yet?
  85. Ge0rG I'm not sure whether that table is subject to change, ever
  86. dwd Ge0rG, No, I think it was pure expediency.
  87. Ge0rG If it's guaranteed to remain as is, I'm +1 on the XEP.
  88. dwd linkmauve, Got a vote for us?
  89. jonas’ IANA has this: https://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml getting something in there seems.... tricky
  90. jonas’ requires an RFC updating 3279
  91. linkmauve I haven't reviewed the latest version of 0300, I'll be on list.
  92. dwd That'll be why we went for expediency.
  93. dwd Moving on:
  94. dwd b) XEP-0353 to DRAFT
  95. Ge0rG On list
  96. jonas’ on-list with default to -0
  97. dwd I'm +1 for this. Seems widely deployed and sensible.
  98. Ge0rG jonas’: is there a specific reason for that default?
  99. jonas’ Ge0rG, there was no feedback on-list and I have no idea about jingle.
  100. linkmauve Sorry, I'm not used to phone keyboards.
  101. Ge0rG I need to review it for MAM and Carbons side effects
  102. jonas’ I don’t think that me reviewing it will give me anything which helps me decide
  103. jonas’ dwd, widely deployed? I would’ve expected feedback in the month this has been in LC then.
  104. dwd jonas’, Well, that's a matter of low energy and engagement.
  105. Ge0rG Even a short message about it being widely deployed
  106. Ge0rG XMPP Low Energy.
  107. dwd linkmauve, Any vote/opinion?
  108. linkmauve 0353 I'm on list too with a default of +1.
  109. jonas’ I’ll send a mail about that to the list.
  110. dwd OK.
  111. dwd 5) Outstanding votes
  112. dwd I think the previous ones have all now expired.
  113. Ge0rG Yes
  114. dwd 6) Next Meeting
  115. dwd +1W?
  116. jonas’ wfm
  117. Ge0rG +1W looks good on my calendar
  118. linkmauve Wait I have an aob.
  119. dwd linkmauve, Hang on.
  120. dwd It's not AOB yet.
  121. dwd 7) AOB
  122. linkmauve About message retraction.
  123. dwd linkmauve, Uh-oh. Do tell.
  124. linkmauve Multiple people noticed that the previous council forgot about it.
  125. linkmauve It has the same issues as reactions though.
  126. dwd :-(
  127. pep. Yeah, Ge0rG jokingly commented on that in xsf@
  128. pep. (Or maybe it was serious? :p)
  129. linkmauve As in, message attachment is blocking it.
  130. dwd I agree it's all an interesting mesh of issues. I'm not sure it's something for Council to do much with beyond evaluating a proposal.
  131. Ge0rG dwd: what's the alternative for Council, then? Just reject everything with references, until someone comes up with The Right Way?
  132. linkmauve Oh, my connection will drop in a few minutes, I'm in the U-Bahn.
  133. dwd Ge0rG, Well, individuals on Council can propose something of course.
  134. pep. If I may, from the floor, I would very much like to get these accepted before we figure out the answer to the ultimate question [..]
  135. Ge0rG dwd: I think this is something where multiple council members might combine efforts to move things forward
  136. dwd Ge0rG, Well, sure, but it really doesn't have to be council members, is what I'm saying.
  137. Ge0rG Somebody over in xsf@ even questioned the authority of Council members to reject a proto XEP on those grounds.
  138. jonas’ it is duplicating existing protocol
  139. jonas’ (in theory that would be an applicable reason)
  140. jonas’ I tend to agree with the general sentiment
  141. Ge0rG dwd: yes, but currently there are some proposals (and their authors) blocked on this issue
  142. jonas’ can we reach out to the client devs who are invested in this and work closely with them to figure out a solution?
  143. jonas’ I mean they need to be on board anyways
  144. dwd jonas’, Definitely. It'd be nice to get a bunch of them to agree on a solution. Maybe if they discussed it on a mailing list or a chatroom and proposed a XEP.
  145. jonas’ that’d be ideal
  146. dwd jonas’, Do we have a mailing list or a chatroom people could use?
  147. Reventlov has left
  148. jonas’ and also get some of them to apply for council next term
  149. jonas’ dwd, I’m not sure if you’re being rhetorical here
  150. pep. Standards@? jdev@?
  151. Reventlov has joined
  152. Ge0rG I can only imagine that somebody who just got their first XEP rejected on formal grounds might not be very inclined to do the work required to resolve those formal issues
  153. jonas’ xsf@ even
  154. pep. Or that
  155. dwd jonas’, Either rhetorical or sarcastic. It's hard for even me to tell these days.
  156. Ge0rG The <s> tag stands for "serious".
  157. Ge0rG Can I summarize this debate as "we have agreed to keep everything as is"?
  158. jonas’ I’ll reach out to them
  159. dwd Ge0rG, For what it's worth, I wanted to accept the Reactions one.
  160. linkmauve It's not that much of a formal issue, but a factoring issue.
  161. dwd Anyway.
  162. dwd We're over time - anyone got anything to add before I close?
  163. jonas’ not me
  164. dwd 8) Ite, Meeting Est
  165. Ge0rG please on-list your opinion regarding message errors.
  166. dwd Ge0rG, You'll need to remind me on the details - was it broadcast in Carbons, etc?
  167. dwd Ge0rG, Only, I've got a use-case for sending them through MUC, now.
  168. Ge0rG dwd: it was about that, yes. Also about putting errors into MAM and offline storage
  169. Ge0rG I'm worried about the side effects of carbonated message errors on protocols I'm not aware of.
  170. dwd Ge0rG, Right. So my problem is to do with sending messages with out of band media, and wanting to clearly indicate to the sender if downloading the media failed.
  171. Ge0rG For MUC errors, Carbon-copying is certainly problematic
  172. dwd Ge0rG, No, not MUC errors, errors from messages passing through MUC. The current implementations would simply boot the user who sent the error.
  173. Ge0rG dwd: yes, that's a different issue
  174. dwd Ge0rG, Yes, but I think it's related.
  175. Ge0rG dwd: I'm not very sure about that.
  176. dwd Ge0rG, In as much as most entities are bad about generating and handling errors, and that's in part because of our stipulated handling.
  177. linkmauve has left
  178. Ge0rG dwd: yes, but we are speaking of two orthogonal problems with the stipulated handling.
  179. Ge0rG maybe occupants should send errors and receipts via PM anyway?
  180. dwd Ge0rG, Absolutely. Same area, distinct issues.
  181. dwd Ge0rG, That's an interesting suggestion.
  182. Ge0rG dwd: obviously not good for read markers, because somebody thought it's fancy to keep track of who read how much of what, individually.
  183. dwd Ge0rG, Yes... It's quite a way to amplify traffic though.
  184. Ge0rG I wonder if you can trigger read-markers with empty messages.
  185. Ge0rG But then again, DoS on XMPP clients is as challenging as taking away candy from children.
  186. dwd Ge0rG, True. It's not about DoS, just efficiency.
  187. Ge0rG dwd: sending a MUC-PM error is perfectly fine, unless PMs are forbidden by the MUC
  188. dwd Ge0rG, Do those go through?
  189. Ge0rG I _think_ so
  190. dwd Ge0rG, I think they'd appear to be normal bounces (similar to a delivery failure) and thus kick the offending client.
  191. Ge0rG Let's test.
  192. Ge0rG dwd: I just sent you a message error PM. I hope
  193. dwd [16:56:51] ‎Ge0rG‎: Let's test. ‎[17:00:52] ‎message ―――――――――――――――――――― ‎[17:01:03] ‎Ge0rG‎: dwd: I just sent you a message error PM. I hope
  194. dwd That's... Interesting.
  195. Ge0rG <message to="council@muc.xmpp.org/dwd" type="error"><error type="cancel"><not-acceptable xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/><text xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'>This is a severe error.</text></error></message>
  196. Ge0rG I wasn't kicked by either MUC or server.
  197. Zash has joined
  198. Ge0rG dwd: what client was that, btw?
  199. Ge0rG Error> council@muc.xmpp.org/Ge0rG: cancel: This is a severe error. ...is what I get on self-PM
  200. dwd Gajim.
  201. Ge0rG Somebody with a faster uplink should add PMs to https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Client_Test_Cases
  202. Wojtek has joined
  203. Wojtek has left
  204. Reventlov has left
  205. Reventlov has joined
  206. lnj has joined
  207. lnj has left
  208. linkmauve has joined
  209. Zash has left
  210. debacle has joined
  211. Reventlov has left
  212. Lance has joined
  213. Lance has left
  214. lnj has joined
  215. linkmauve has left
  216. linkmauve has joined
  217. linkmauve has left
  218. Reventlov has joined
  219. jonas’ has left
  220. linkmauve has joined
  221. debacle has left
  222. lnj has left
  223. linkmauve has left
  224. linkmauve has joined
  225. linkmauve has left