XSF logo XMPP Council - 2019-11-13


  1. Tobias has left
  2. debacle has left
  3. Tobias has joined
  4. Tobias has left
  5. Tobias has joined
  6. debacle has joined
  7. stpeter has left
  8. Tobias has left
  9. moparisthebest has left
  10. moparisthebest has joined
  11. stpeter has joined
  12. debacle has left
  13. stpeter has left
  14. jos1264 has joined
  15. jos1264 has left
  16. stpeter has joined
  17. stpeter has left
  18. Guus has left
  19. Guus has joined
  20. daniel has left
  21. Tobias has joined
  22. daniel has joined
  23. lnj has joined
  24. daniel has left
  25. undefined has left
  26. lnj has left
  27. undefined has joined
  28. daniel has joined
  29. sonny has left
  30. sonny has joined
  31. daniel has left
  32. daniel has joined
  33. Zash has left
  34. debacle has joined
  35. Zash has joined
  36. debacle has left
  37. lnj has joined
  38. debacle has joined
  39. Syndace has left
  40. Syndace has joined
  41. Wojtek has joined
  42. guy has joined
  43. stpeter has joined
  44. guy has left
  45. guy has joined
  46. guy has left
  47. stpeter has left
  48. Wojtek has left
  49. daniel has left
  50. daniel has joined
  51. stpeter has joined
  52. Zash has left
  53. Wojtek has joined
  54. raspbeguy has left
  55. raspbeguy has joined
  56. stpeter has left
  57. Zash has joined
  58. stpeter has joined
  59. Zash has left
  60. Zash has joined
  61. stpeter has left
  62. daniel has left
  63. daniel has joined
  64. Dave Cridland has joined
  65. Ge0rG It is the time and the day.
  66. Ge0rG And I even have a Controversial Agendum!
  67. dwd Afternoon all.
  68. dwd 1) Roll Call
  69. Ge0rG ,o/
  70. Link Mauve Hi. o/
  71. Ge0rG hello one-armed Link Mauve
  72. jonas’ here
  73. dwd I've a vague recollection Kev said he'd likely miss this one.
  74. Kev Maybe
  75. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  76. Kev I'm here.
  77. dwd I don't think there's anything, but I see Ge0rG wants to fight with me on this. :-)
  78. Ge0rG 15:23:18 Ge0rG> dwd: can we add https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854 to tomorrow's agenda? The worst thing that can happen is that it will be re-voted by New Council
  79. dwd Oh, fair enough.
  80. Ge0rG It's a PR adding to MUC-PM: > Private messages are meant to hide a user's real JID from occupants they are talking to. In <link url='#enter-nonanon'>non-anonymous rooms</link>, a client SHOULD NOT resort to private messages, but instead make use of direct messages to the other occupant's real bare JID. However, if the user knows the other JID for other reasons, e.g. because they are a room admin, private messages SHOULD be used anyway.
  81. Ge0rG rendered version at https://op-co.de/tmp/xep-0045.html#privatemessage
  82. dwd Anyone have anything else?
  83. jonas’ +1 from me
  84. jonas’ oh, we’re not even voting yet
  85. dwd jonas’, Patience.
  86. jonas’ sorry, no, nothing from e
  87. jonas’ sorry, no, nothing from me
  88. dwd OK. In that case:
  89. Link Mauve Neither from me.
  90. dwd 3) Items for a vote.
  91. dwd a) XEP-0045: Direct messages SHOULD be used over PMs in non-anonymous rooms #854
  92. dwd https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854
  93. jonas’ +1 on #854
  94. Link Mauve +1 for that, it’s making the UX easier for users with no downside.
  95. Ge0rG +1
  96. Ge0rG I'm sure some people will consider this a Breaking Change, though.
  97. Kev How does the client know that it's 'other reasons'?
  98. Link Mauve Kev, it should be aware that the room isn’t non-anonymous by doing disco#info on it.
  99. dwd I think I'm going to be difficult. I understand the rationale (I think), but it remains unclear why this is a good idea, and it's unclear there are any interoperability concerns (which makes me question RFC 2119 language).
  100. Ge0rG > If the user is entering a room that is non-anonymous (i.e., which informs all occupants of each occupant's full JID as shown above), the service MUST warn the user by including a status code of "100" in the initial presence that the room sends to the new occupant
  101. jonas’ !100_received && jid_known => other_reasons
  102. Kev dwd: I think there potentially /are/ interoperability concerns. Those messages might get swallowed because the users aren't in each other's roster and they're blocking messages from such.
  103. Link Mauve Or 100 yeah.
  104. Ge0rG dwd: direct messages are typically much more robust than MUC-PMs, delivery-wise
  105. Link Mauve Kev, or s2s is broken for $reasons.
  106. dwd Kev, Oh, that's true. Although if they're blocking the user deliberately - I see arguments pro and con.
  107. Kev dwd: But if they're simply not allowing non-roster messages...
  108. Link Mauve Kev, shouldn’t they also block MUC PMs in this case?
  109. Kev Or non-presence messages, I should say.
  110. dwd My problem isn't even if this is a good idea, it's that it's marked as a SHOULD without really explaining the considerations involved.
  111. Ge0rG not allowing non-roster messages is a very bad practice.
  112. jonas’ Kev, but isn’t that already an interop problem in and of itself?
  113. Kev Link Mauve: I meant non-presence, really, rather than non-roster.
  114. Ge0rG dwd: I started typing it as "should", but then I realized that RFC2119 applies either way and made it explicit
  115. Kev We started doing this in Swift, and actually ended up with messages not getting through that previously did.
  116. Ge0rG dwd: what are the considerations that are missing?
  117. dwd Ge0rG, Well, blah. I disagree that it does apply in non-caps, but it's somewhat irrelevant.
  118. Ge0rG dwd: if lowercasing it will please you, I can surely do that ;)
  119. Kev So I think rushing this through at the last moment of this Council is ill-advised. Better to wait for a Council who have full voting periods to consider the implications.
  120. Link Mauve Kev, on the other hand, I’ve had users report that it was terribly confusing to have two different chats with me (due to clicking on me from the MUC vs. from their roster, but they didn’t know that).
  121. Kev But this breaks things, so if we really want to vote now, I'm -1.
  122. Ge0rG Kev: we still have a week left.
  123. Ge0rG What Link Mauve said.
  124. jonas’ Ge0rG, put it into modernxmpp.org
  125. Link Mauve jonas’, it already is there.
  126. jonas’ ah, good.
  127. Kev Link Mauve: Indeed. And it's worth discussing that. But normative language here in this way isn't right.
  128. Ge0rG I actually experienced that with a coworker, who was confused about how those two chats are different.
  129. dwd Link Mauve, I've had users say they like the seperation of 1:1 messages and private messages relating to a groupchat.
  130. Link Mauve Kev, I think this is what this change is about. :)
  131. Ge0rG dwd: did those users grasp the difference?
  132. Kev As I say - we implemented this in Swift because it seemed like the Obviously Right thing to do - and then found it wasn't, necessarily.
  133. dwd Link Mauve, And if a client wishes to combine those into a single UX, what prevents it?
  134. Ge0rG Kev: your description rather sounds like it still is the Obviously Right thing to do, but there are technical implementation problems associated
  135. Link Mauve dwd, nothing, they perfectly can avoid this recommendation.
  136. Ge0rG also something about trust domains and how a MUC can manipulate all and everything coming in through it
  137. dwd Link Mauve, No, I mean, if a client wishes to present PMs in a non-anonymous room in the same message stream as 1:1 messages, surely it can?
  138. dwd Finally, I think there's a security issue wherein a semi-anonymous room could easily confuse a MUC admin's client into revealing the MUC admin's jid.
  139. Kev So I think these are the right questions to be asking, but I don't think this text is the right way to answer them.
  140. Kev Or not in isolation, at least.
  141. dwd But yes, I get, entirely, there are reasons why clients might want to send messages directly, and present PMs as direct messages. I'm not not comfortable putting a blanket requirement into '45 without some explanation of the considerations involved.
  142. dwd So I'm going to be awkward and -1 this.
  143. Ge0rG dwd, Kev: do you have specific advice on how to move on?
  144. Link Mauve dwd, a client can, but for instance multiple clients may not and it will be even more confusing to see half of the discussion happening on one client, and the full conversation on the other, as if Carbons wasn’t enabled.
  145. Kev Ge0rG: Off the hoof, I'm not sure I have a complete answer. It at least involves relaxing the language from SHOULD and having a discussion of the implications of both options, I think.
  146. Kev (And Security Considerations, as Dave says)
  147. dwd I have a feeling a lot more text will be involved. But more or less what Kev says.
  148. Ge0rG Kev: I'm aiming for consistency here, which is why I wanted the SHOULD
  149. Kev It's possible that appropriate discussion text means that a SHOULD is possible, I'm not sure at this point.
  150. Ge0rG I agree that more text about the trade-offs would be helpful, but historically we aren't good at offering such text, and I'm missing an appropriate XML element to style it as such
  151. dwd Ge0rG, If the text said "generally prefer" instead of SHOULD I would be more comfortable.
  152. Ge0rG dwd: noted
  153. dwd Ge0rG, But I don't think it's anywhere close to "Always do this and if you don't expect things to break", which is the approximate translation of SHOULD.
  154. Kev Having a SHOULD means that a receiving client should be able to make assumptions, too.
  155. Ge0rG re Security Considerations, the MUC can fake everything and anything, and I hoped that the text is clear about when NOT to do it
  156. Ge0rG dwd: isn't that the approximate translation of MUST, with SHOULD being more like "you should be knowing very well what you do if you violate a SHOULD"
  157. dwd Ge0rG, The gap between MUST and SHOULD is very small indeed. :-)
  158. Ge0rG dwd: it SHOULD be larger, though.
  159. dwd Anyway. Moving on?
  160. Ge0rG Sorry.
  161. Ge0rG does it make sense to bring this up again, next week, with relaxed text and pros and cons added?
  162. Ge0rG also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
  163. dwd Sure. And if it's well-discussed on the list it stands a good chance.
  164. jonas’ maybe, but if you’ve got it prepared for next council it doesn’t harm
  165. Kev I think there might be people outside this room who have experience here that is relevant, so I think listing it is important.
  166. Kev e.g. it's coincidence that I happen to be on Council (this week) and could say "We tried this and some things break".
  167. Ge0rG dwd: I can't promise a list discussion happening within a week
  168. Link Mauve Even if it takes two, it should be fine.
  169. Ge0rG Kev: but if I send a mail to standards@, and you reply to it, maybe more people will notice.
  170. dwd Ge0rG, Sounds good.
  171. Kev I will promise to try to respond :)
  172. Ge0rG > also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
  173. dwd Anyway, really moving on.
  174. dwd 4) Next Meeting
  175. dwd Next week?
  176. Kev I *think* I can.
  177. jonas’ +1w wfm
  178. dwd I think we'll try then. :-)
  179. Ge0rG +1W WFM
  180. dwd 5) Any Other Business?
  181. Ge0rG none here
  182. Kev Newp.
  183. dwd Really?
  184. dwd :-)
  185. dwd In that case:
  186. dwd 6) Ite, Meeting Est
  187. Link Mauve \o_
  188. Ge0rG > also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
  189. dwd One more to go, and the hopefully someone else will wat to have a go.
  190. jonas’ thanks, dwd
  191. pep. > dwd: if lowercasing it will please you, I can surely do that ;) We haven't settled on changing 2119 to the update have we. That was never resolved
  192. dwd Yes, I think it was resolved, in the sense of "Not without individually checking every document carefully".
  193. Ge0rG pep.: yes, that went down on some TODO list
  194. dwd It'd probably be useful to do the groundwork allowing us to change them one by one, and adopt the updated version (that I can't recall the number of) for new documents and revisions ona case-by-case.
  195. dwd That part is just XSLT stuff that's an Editor job. Sorry. But it'll allow us to move more easily on the issue.
  196. flow and we could at least update the boilerplate text regarding 2119 at least for new XEPs
  197. pep. flow, agreed
  198. dwd Exactly.
  199. daniel has left
  200. undefined has left
  201. debacle has left
  202. stpeter has joined
  203. undefined has joined
  204. undefined has left
  205. undefined has joined
  206. daniel has joined
  207. stpeter has left
  208. Wojtek has left
  209. Zash has left
  210. Zash has joined
  211. debacle has joined
  212. Zash has left
  213. hichamel has joined
  214. hichamel has left
  215. hichamel has joined
  216. hichamel has left
  217. moparisthebest has left
  218. moparisthebest has joined
  219. lnj has left