XMPP Council - 2020-02-26


  1. moparisthebest has left
  2. stpeter has left
  3. stpeter has joined
  4. paul has left
  5. alin has joined
  6. stpeter has left
  7. alin has left
  8. moparisthebest has joined
  9. paul has joined
  10. moparisthebest has left
  11. Tobias has joined
  12. paul has left
  13. Ge0rG has left
  14. moparisthebest has joined
  15. undefined has joined
  16. paul has joined
  17. Ge0rG has joined
  18. guy has joined
  19. susmit88 has joined
  20. undefined has left
  21. undefined has joined
  22. undefined has left
  23. undefined has joined
  24. undefined has left
  25. undefined has joined
  26. susmit88 has left
  27. undefined has left
  28. undefined has joined
  29. debacle has joined
  30. undefined has left
  31. undefined has joined
  32. undefined has left
  33. undefined has joined
  34. Zash has left
  35. Zash has joined
  36. debacle has left
  37. debacle has joined
  38. undefined has left
  39. undefined has joined
  40. undefined has left
  41. undefined has joined
  42. undefined has left
  43. undefined has joined
  44. undefined has left
  45. undefined has joined
  46. undefined has left
  47. undefined has joined
  48. Holger has left
  49. undefined has left
  50. undefined has joined
  51. Holger has joined
  52. undefined has left
  53. undefined has joined
  54. undefined has left
  55. undefined has joined
  56. Guus has left
  57. Guus has joined
  58. Holger has left
  59. undefined has left
  60. undefined has joined
  61. Holger has joined
  62. susmit88 has joined
  63. undefined has left
  64. undefined has joined
  65. undefined has left
  66. undefined has joined
  67. susmit88 has left
  68. undefined has left
  69. undefined has joined
  70. jonas’ heads up, work and public transport hate my scheduling today. I might run a few minutes late. Feel free to start without me, I'll join. Ideally, I'll at least be on my phone when 1600Z strikes
  71. Wojtek has joined
  72. undefined has left
  73. undefined has joined
  74. paul has left
  75. undefined has left
  76. undefined has joined
  77. paul has joined
  78. undefined has left
  79. undefined has joined
  80. undefined has left
  81. undefined has joined
  82. undefined has left
  83. undefined has joined
  84. paul has left
  85. paul has joined
  86. paul has left
  87. jonas’ will be on time
  88. paul has joined
  89. paul has left
  90. paul has joined
  91. paul has left
  92. paul has joined
  93. paul has left
  94. paul has joined
  95. susmit88 has joined
  96. Zash Just got home and sat down
  97. jonas’ kind of did the same
  98. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  99. jonas’ is present
  100. Zash 2
  101. daniel Here
  102. Ge0rG !
  103. Zash dwd?
  104. jonas’ assuming that dwd will appear, moving on
  105. jonas’ (we have quorum either way)
  106. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  107. jonas’ anything to add?
  108. jonas’ probably not
  109. Ge0rG We need shorter agendas in the future
  110. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update - ProtoXEP: Extended Channel Search - Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0198, CFE on XEP-0368, LC on XEP-0398 - Calls in progress: - LC: XEP-0402 (PEP Native Bookmarks), ends: 2020-03-03 - CFE: XEP-0066 (Out of Band Data), ends: 2020-03-10 - LC: XEP-0429 (Special Interests Group End to End Encryption), ends: 2020-03-10
  111. jonas’ (note the LC which came in after I sent the email yesterday)
  112. jonas’ 4) Items for a Vote
  113. jonas’ 4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0398 Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html Abstract: This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between the two.
  114. jonas’ 4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0398 Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html Abstract: This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between the two.
  115. jonas’ I would like to see changes on the Security Considerations section before this moves on. Since we need to touch normative language, I guess it’s better to handle this in Experimental
  116. jonas’ so -1 from my side
  117. Ge0rG Some PEP access questions came up, it would make sense to consider those first
  118. jonas’ so -1 from my side, with the intent of having someone™ fix this
  119. jonas’ so -1 from my side, with the intent of having someone™ fix this; so no rejection, just back to Experimental for fixes
  120. Ge0rG -1 as well due to that
  121. daniel Yes I'm fine with updating the pep stuff on relative short notice
  122. daniel We can restart next week or so
  123. jonas’ sounds like a plan
  124. Zash -1 (I agree with jonas’ )
  125. dwd Hiya folks, sorry for being late.
  126. stpeter has joined
  127. daniel -1
  128. jonas’ that’s massively Veto’d then
  129. jonas’ next:
  130. dwd I can add another veto if you want. :-)
  131. jonas’ dwd, would be great for formal reasons :)
  132. jonas’ 4b) Decide on advancement of XEP-0198 Title: Stream Management URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for active management of an XML stream between two XMPP entities, including features for stanza acknowledgements and stream resumption. (The CFE ends today, so be sure to send in your feedback if you haven’t already.)
  133. dwd -1, for the reasons stated by others.
  134. Ge0rG dwd: can you also add more veto reasons?
  135. jonas’ I am on-list, because I haven’t been able to catch up on the thread yet
  136. Ge0rG I'm not sure regarding 0198. It's doing its job great, except for the unclear resume host connection mechanism
  137. dwd For XEP-0198, I noted a comment from - I think - MattJ on S2S I've yet to consider. But it's fair to say that 198 on S2S is under specified at best.
  138. Zash Ge0rG, s2s?
  139. jonas’ we have zero s2s implementations, do we?
  140. Ge0rG So we want actual experience with s2s 0198?
  141. jonas’ question is whether that even allows us to move it forward
  142. daniel -1. I think I (and others) brought up vaild but fixable concerns
  143. Zash on-list, haven't read that thread yet
  144. dwd jonas’, I honestly don't know. None were explicitly mentioned.
  145. dwd jonas’, Which itself is a procedural reason for not advancing.
  146. dwd So as such, given the lack of clarity there, I'll be -1 on this.
  147. jonas’ indeed
  148. Zash mod_smacks for Prosody does support 198 on s2s, but it's disabled by default and I don't think anyone ever enabled it
  149. Zash no resumption tho
  150. dwd Zash, Right, unclear what resumption would do for S2S.
  151. jonas’ resending stanzas which weren’t acked?
  152. dwd jonas’, Depends if they weren't already bounced.
  153. jonas’ mmm
  154. jonas’ okay, that’s a rabbit hole we shouldn’t go down in this context
  155. dwd Quite.
  156. jonas’ moving on
  157. Ge0rG so -1 then
  158. jonas’ 4c) Deviced on advancement of XEP-0368 Title: SRV records for XMPP over TLS URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0368.html Abstract: This specification defines a procedure to look up xmpps-client/xmpps-server SRV records (for direct TLS connections) in addition to xmpp-client/xmpp-server and mix weights/priorities.
  159. moparisthebest (I promised to make some changes to XEP-0368, mostly clerical, but one SHOULD to a MAY)
  160. jonas’ I am -1 on 4c, since there need to be some changes made
  161. undefined has left
  162. Ge0rG -1 on 4c as well, I liked the proposed wording
  163. jonas’ goes to dig up the proposed wording
  164. Zash on-list
  165. daniel On list. I'm not caught up on that
  166. dwd I'll take "I promised to make some changes" as a "update coming", so -1 for now.
  167. Ge0rG I think that leaving this to clients is good, because right now, priorizing DirectTLS over STARTSSL will add an RTT on servers without DirectTLS SRV records
  168. dwd I'm also unclear on ALPN implementation.
  169. dwd Oh, and this reminds me - I have AOB, jonas’
  170. jonas’ alright, changes will happen here, so moving on
  171. jonas’ dwd, noted
  172. jonas’ 4d) Proposed XMPP Extension: Extended Channel Search URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/extended-channel-search.html Abstract: This specification provides a standardised protocol to search for public group chats. In contrast to XEP-0030 (Service Discovery), it works across multiple domains and in contrast to XEP-0055 (Jabber Search) it more clearly handles extensibility.
  173. jonas’ Unsurprisingly, I’m +1 on that one.
  174. daniel +1
  175. Zash +1
  176. dwd +1
  177. Ge0rG I have issues with that, mainly regarding the discoverability of whether the service is a local search for the given host domain or a proxy
  178. Ge0rG +1
  179. jonas’ Ge0rG, me too, I intend to fix those in Experimental
  180. jonas’ excellent, next
  181. jonas’ 4e) Authorship of XEP-0044 Title: Full Namespace Support for XML Streams Abstract: A description of the use of namespaces within Jabber.
  182. Zash jonas’, was this the one mentioning something about 0004? I didn't see it
  183. jonas’ Zash, yes, in the Design Considerations section
  184. jonas’ I would like to take authorship of XEP-0044, polish it, add namespaced attributes and a stream feature to it and bring it back on TRack
  185. jonas’ I would like to take authorship of XEP-0044, polish it, add namespaced attributes and a stream feature to it and bring it back on Track
  186. jonas’ I tried to contact the author already, but neither did I get a reply nor can I find the sent mail, so maybe I didn’t
  187. jonas’ ah, it’s stuck in my clients outbox
  188. Ge0rG I motion that jonas’ re-sends that email, and if no response happens within of 14d, he may take over authorship
  189. jonas’ resent it now, so we should probably move that
  190. jonas’ resent it now, so we should probably move that agendum
  191. jonas’ alright
  192. jonas’ 5) Outstanding Votes
  193. jonas’ I think Zash still has one pending on Trust Messages
  194. jonas’ (noting that we are on two +1 and two ±0 at the moment)
  195. jonas’ (expires in +1w)
  196. Zash +1 then
  197. jonas’ alright, done
  198. jonas’ 6) Date of Next
  199. jonas’ +1w wfm, though I might both be late and have to leave on time. Meeting at work before, burgers afterwards.
  200. Ge0rG I'm going to miss +1W
  201. dwd +1w WFM.
  202. jonas’ so if someone volunteered to chair (I’ll send an agenda, of course) that’d be great
  203. Zash +1w fwm
  204. daniel +1w wfm
  205. jonas’ looks at dwd
  206. Ge0rG jonas’: maybe you should announce AOB first
  207. jonas’ can do that
  208. jonas’ let’s hope someone will be there next week to chair then ;)
  209. jonas’ 7) AOB
  210. jonas’ dwd had some, so mic to you
  211. dwd Yeah...
  212. dwd So XEP-0001 says that to move to Final, a spec needs two implementations, etc.
  213. susmit88 has left
  214. dwd But we're not clear if that means that every optional part needs implementing, and we're not clear on whether this might be one client and one server.
  215. jonas’ true
  216. dwd I've always just assumed that we demand the same levels as the IETF, which would be 2xClient and 2xServer covering all optional parts.
  217. daniel That sounds sensible
  218. pep. So Pubsub and MUC will never be Final?
  219. dwd Does anyone think this is important enough to specify properly in XEP-0001, and does anyone have any views on this?
  220. pep. (who implements everything?)
  221. jonas’ dwd, that indeed sounds sensible
  222. Ge0rG pep.: zinid does?
  223. dwd pep., The idea would be that a spec moving to Final either gets the weird bits nobody actually does removed, or at least moved to a different XEP.
  224. jonas’ and ..... highly unlikely to ever apply to MUC and PubSub, indeed.
  225. Ge0rG dwd: it's a good idea. Somebody™ should make it happen!
  226. pep. yay 1 server implementation, 3 to go
  227. daniel In practice the number of implementations never seems to be an issue
  228. moparisthebest then there are odd xeps like 368, where there are 3 parts, 1 client, and 2 server, all servers implemented 1 of them before 368, but I'm not sure we have 2 impls of the 2nd part
  229. jonas’ daniel, in practice, we haven’t tried to Final '45 yet ;)
  230. dwd daniel, Normally, no - specs are either widely implemented or not at all.
  231. jonas’ dwd, if you prepare a patch for '1, can you remind me to update the CFE template to specifically instruct to mention pieces which were left out in the implementation?
  232. dwd moparisthebest, ALPN support in XEP-0368 would be an interesting case in point, actually.
  233. dwd jonas’, Yes, happy to do that.
  234. jonas’ either way, in this non-vote, I’m +1 to making this clear in '1 and to adhere to IETF standards
  235. dwd So consensus is that I'll take this on, pen some text, get agreement on lists and prepare a patch for this and CFE template?
  236. jonas’ needs to be sanctioned by board either way
  237. jonas’ dwd, yes
  238. dwd OK, will do.
  239. Zash Clarification is good.
  240. moparisthebest dwd, that's true also, I was more meaning all servers supported listening for TLS on c2s, but how many 1) listen on TLS for s2s 2) connect TLS for s2s
  241. moparisthebest I think maybe just your Metre ?
  242. dwd moparisthebest, And Openfire - I think Guus did it there anyway.
  243. Zash Prosody can if you enable port multiplexing
  244. Zash Listen, not connect tho.
  245. dwd Anyway, that's me done, jonas’
  246. jonas’ anyone else any AOB?
  247. daniel None here
  248. Ge0rG My usual meta-oob comes and goes.
  249. jonas’ we’re running out of time either way
  250. jonas’ Ge0rG, I’m not sure which one that would be, does it fit in 30s?
  251. Ge0rG jonas’: of course not. It's about persistence of message errors.
  252. jonas’ ew, right
  253. jonas’ then:
  254. jonas’ As a closing note, I’d like to encourage all Council members to read up and potentially advance on this thread: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036870.html
  255. Ge0rG Or rather, that is one of three or so meta-OOBs that I have around
  256. jonas’ And with that:
  257. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  258. jonas’ thank you all
  259. jonas’ thank you, Tedd
  260. Ge0rG thank you, jonas’
  261. Zash Thanks all
  262. dwd Ge0rG, Didn't I handle persisting message errors somewhere in XEP-0427?
  263. jonas’ (at some point, when Tedd finally disappears into the magic cloud of dust they must’ve come from, council chairs will still say that in the hopes to summon minutes.)
  264. jonas’ (at some point, when Tedd eventually disappears into the magic cloud of dust they must’ve come from, council chairs will still say that in the hopes to summon minutes.)
  265. Ge0rG > The second form, "full", presents every message stanza in the results, including all fastenings, errors, and so on.
  266. Ge0rG dwd: I don't think that's normative.
  267. Ge0rG jonas’: it will be one of those arcane procedures nobody knows the reasons for
  268. dwd Ge0rG, That is normative. It's a statement of fact. I can put MUST somewhere to clarify though.
  269. Ge0rG dwd: my point is: I want that to be explicit and well-visible to all developers
  270. Ge0rG and not part of a very new XEP that is still being rewritten
  271. dwd Ge0rG, Sure. I need to do a fairly extensive pass over that spec; I'll make it clear that an implication of supporting the spec for servers is that they need to store everything inclusing errors.
  272. Ge0rG dwd: still, I'd like to keep that separate
  273. dwd Ge0rG, Split out "simplified" and "full" from XEP-0427?
  274. Ge0rG dwd: split out "you MUST store message errors in MAM"
  275. Ge0rG dwd: split out "you MUST store message errors in MAM and Carbon-copy them everywhere"
  276. paul has left
  277. paul has joined
  278. larma has left
  279. Guus > moparisthebest, And Openfire - I think Guus did it there anyway. Yes, but has a bug.
  280. moparisthebest buggy implementations probably still count as implementations? :) good to know though
  281. moparisthebest Guus, does openfire do ALPN at all?
  282. moparisthebest ALPN support seems far more widespread today than just a few years ago when XEP-0368 was written, thanks http/2 I guess!
  283. Guus moparisthebest: don't think so. Seem to recall it was not supported in java 8
  284. moparisthebest java unsupported-for-over-a-year-now ? yea probably not :)
  285. moparisthebest looks like it's been supported since Java 9 though, and 13 is the only supported version of java, until next month when 14 will be
  286. Guus I think it is in newer versions, but Openfire retains compatibility with older Kava
  287. Guus I think it is in newer versions, but Openfire retains compatibility with older Java
  288. larma has joined
  289. moparisthebest Conversations was the first impl and it always supported ALPN, Gajim I think supports ALPN, I don't think Dino does but not sure anymore
  290. moparisthebest jonas’, does aioxmpp ?
  291. jonas’ moparisthebest, I don’t think so
  292. jonas’ oh it does
  293. moparisthebest *can* it? (does python let you?)
  294. moparisthebest oh cool
  295. jonas’ if the PyOpenSSL version is recent enough
  296. moparisthebest anything that supports http2 supports ALPN so that should be fairly widespread at this point
  297. jonas’ and it’ll log a warning if DirectTLS is attempted and PyOpenSSL doesn’t support ALPN
  298. jonas’ https://github.com/horazont/aioxmpp/blob/devel/aioxmpp/connector.py#L296-L307
  299. moparisthebest that's also where it gets hairy, server-side alpn support, probably most servers don't but then it's not the xmpp server's job to proxy to nginx or whatever
  300. moparisthebest nginx and sslh both support this though, probably haproxy and others too
  301. moparisthebest "support" or "implementations" is hard to define
  302. jonas’ I think in this case it means that the server side mustn’t break if the client attempts ALPN in a standard-conformant way
  303. jonas’ I think in this case it means that the server side mustn’t break if the client attempts xmpp-related ALPN in a standard-conformant way
  304. moparisthebest yep and that's always been true even when servers just supported "legacy ssl" before 368
  305. moparisthebest they didn't recognize the TLS extension and just ignored it
  306. Syndace has left
  307. Syndace has joined
  308. daniel has left
  309. daniel has joined
  310. stpeter has left
  311. Tobias has left
  312. Tobias has joined
  313. undefined has joined
  314. undefined has left
  315. undefined has joined
  316. stpeter has joined
  317. larma has left
  318. larma has joined
  319. stpeter has left
  320. stpeter has joined
  321. Tobias has left
  322. Tobias has joined
  323. debacle has left
  324. paul has left
  325. Tobias has left
  326. Wojtek has left