XSF Discussion - 2011-09-21


  1. Tobias has joined
  2. luca tagliaferri has joined
  3. koski has joined
  4. koski has left
  5. luca tagliaferri has left
  6. luca tagliaferri has joined
  7. stpeter has joined
  8. luca tagliaferri has left
  9. Neustradamus stpeter: XEP-0045 1.25 rc6 is released or not?
  10. Jehan has joined
  11. Jehan Hello.
  12. luca tagliaferri has joined
  13. Jehan Hmmm... I am sad. I think I will miss again the meeting. :-(
  14. Jehan Damn timezones! I really wanted to come for today's meeting but I have to leave.
  15. Jehan Have a nice meeting, all!
  16. stpeter thanks, Jehan
  17. Jehan Yep stpeter. I was hoping I could participate to the discussion (if any) for my XEP proposal.
  18. Jehan But I am currently in Tokyo and a friend is leaving Japan tomorrow. So there is a goodbye party.
  19. Jehan Anyway bye.
  20. Jehan has left
  21. Kev has left
  22. Kev has joined
  23. luca tagliaferri has left
  24. luca tagliaferri has joined
  25. stpeter T-2 minutes?
  26. stpeter brb
  27. Florian has joined
  28. Florian hi everyone
  29. Florian Board Meeting time, right?
  30. stpeter that's my understanding :)
  31. Florian Will, Nyco and Jack missing?
  32. stpeter jack is online, let me invite him
  33. Florian just realized, Swift can't invite to MUC?
  34. stpeter Kev said he's working on Swift's MUC support :)
  35. Florian :)
  36. stpeter he wants the ability to kick people, at least
  37. Kev I'll do invites once Tobias's FT support is integrated.
  38. Kev Don't want to create too many merge conflicts for him.
  39. Florian :)
  40. Florian Agenda: http://typewith.me/xsf
  41. jack has joined
  42. jack hello all
  43. Kev I like the way you've filled in who's going to be turning up beforehand :D
  44. stpeter sometimes direct IM works better than room invites
  45. Florian haha, it was there from the last meeting :)
  46. Florian Saved June 29, 2011
  47. Florian :)
  48. Florian any other topics?
  49. stpeter I don't have any other topics
  50. bear Server Certification - cool topic
  51. stpeter the big question is, are we serious about server certification and if so how do we make it happen?
  52. Florian yup
  53. bear before we can even consider that, we have to have a test suite in place
  54. stpeter as I said, probably I can raise some money for this (e.g., to help pay for travel to get the right people in one place), but I think the bigger challenge is to organize and motivate the work
  55. Florian well, I think we should have a spec
  56. Florian i.e. what needs to be tested, what needs to be supported for different certifications
  57. bear also we would need to discuss if we do levels of certification
  58. Florian right
  59. Kev Perhaps it might be interesting to find some organisation that wants to test server compliance or interop, and find out what their requirements are. Try to build something for them first, and go from there?
  60. stpeter Florian: how is that different from http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0302.html and the more detailed features listed in RFC 6120 etc?
  61. jack PDF has a series of test suites that people can run
  62. jack i wonder how those are done
  63. jack it might be useful to look at what other test suites do before embarking on our own
  64. bear I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the IETF someone has done certifying
  65. Florian yeah
  66. stpeter "Certify" might be a strong term
  67. bear compliance suite?
  68. stpeter (semi-)automated interop testing is probably the right place to start
  69. bear *nods*
  70. Florian yeah
  71. Florian something along the lines of the W3C Validator
  72. stpeter right
  73. stpeter that's what I have in mind
  74. Florian looking at XEP-302 ... maybe even add federation to that?
  75. bear then xsf would need to host the service and allow people to point it at their servers
  76. Florian right
  77. stpeter Florian: you might be right that we need a more focused spec that describes the s2s scope more precisly
  78. Kev I think there's much more value in having sometheng people can run themselves off the 'Net.
  79. Florian stpeter: yeah
  80. Kev 'Net-based ones are great for devs testing their own systems, but less so for some organisation wanting to validate a bunch of services internally.
  81. Florian hmm, another question is .... do we "certify" server software or server deployments?
  82. Kev So both modes would be ideal.
  83. bear having a validation service we then could also start advertising the scores/results of people who run against it
  84. Florian bear: indeed
  85. bear the source for a validation service would allow for in-house use by vendors
  86. Florian right
  87. Florian I think there's two ways of seeing this ...
  88. stpeter bear: makes sense
  89. Florian one is to test compliance of a running server (does federation work, valid certs installed....) and the other one is more internal, i.e. does PubSub work the way it's supposed to
  90. stpeter I think that most serious XMPP server developers have such test suites internally, the challenge is working on something common for the greater good
  91. Florian for the first one, a W3C online tool would be awesome (target: sysadmins)
  92. Will has joined
  93. Kev stpeter: Knowing your own stuff works, is different from knowing someone else's works, though.
  94. Florian the other one, the target is the server vendors
  95. Will shit - we changed the time didn't we
  96. Florian Hi Will :)
  97. stpeter Will: yeah
  98. Will :-(
  99. stpeter Will: but at least Jack's able to join us at this time :)
  100. jack has left
  101. Will so, what have I missed?
  102. jack has joined
  103. Florian so what do you guys think of maybe splitting this up into 2 things ... a test suite for developers, and a test site for deployments/sysadmins
  104. bear talking about server certification/validation and running it as a system for people to point at their servers
  105. Florian Will: Server Certification
  106. Tobias this is planned to be purely functionality based testing, right?
  107. bear if the tool is written to have suites of tests and to output to a file, then the web service part becomes just an html display of that output
  108. bear and the file is available for downloading
  109. stpeter yeah
  110. stpeter Tobias: yes!
  111. dwd has joined
  112. stpeter Tobias: no scalability testing
  113. Tobias stpeter, yeah..there are enough tools for that ;)
  114. Florian right
  115. stpeter Tobias: well, we've always avoided scalability testing because there are more variables, set up matters a lot, etc.
  116. Tobias stpeter, i know/just getting to know :)
  117. stpeter and we're supposed to know something about the protocol :)
  118. Florian hehe
  119. stpeter sorry, interruption here, bbiaf
  120. bear seems that we need to 1) gather up tests that could be in said suite 2) start working on python/lua code to test said items and 3) rinse/repeat
  121. Florian yup
  122. dwd Who's doing the work?
  123. bear I mention python/lua code as those are common enough languages that have modern xmpp support libs
  124. Florian so you guys don't think there should be 2 seperate projects?
  125. bear this is something i've always been interested in - I would love to have a chance to work on this
  126. Florian one for deployments a la W3C and one for the actual code?
  127. bear I think we should start small and simple and iterate
  128. dwd Florian, I think a "Verified by XSF" thing for a particular service seems sensible.
  129. bear a project like this could get mired down in politics and/or apathy if the goal is too broad
  130. Florian right
  131. stpeter back
  132. bear likes "Verified by XSF"
  133. stpeter bear: totally agreed on politics or apathy
  134. Will as long as we make sure that people don't read "verified" as "approved"
  135. stpeter indeed
  136. bear heck, the first steps would be a spreadsheet of what to test with a column pointing to source snippets on how to test for that
  137. stpeter Florian: I think bear is right that the validator would just be a public interface to the verifier
  138. stpeter (if that makes sense)
  139. bear it's how the Atom folks did their service
  140. bear a test suite that can be driven by a fancier web interface
  141. stpeter yeah
  142. Florian yup
  143. bear probably a good start would be to get a wiki page of what to test and then just announce it to the list and start iterating on that
  144. stpeter glances at the "Programming in Lua" book on his desk
  145. Florian +1
  146. stpeter WFM
  147. bear having it as a lua and python lib would be a great success
  148. Florian yeah
  149. stpeter I'm language agnostic really, just want to use something that will draw in or keep contributors
  150. Florian might be something for the hackfest in February?
  151. stpeter Florian: that's the idea, yes
  152. stpeter Florian: and I could probably get funding to pay for travel costs of the top contributors :)
  153. Florian :)
  154. bear I will ask Mozilla to see if they will sponsor me on this
  155. stpeter logs into wiki.xmpp.org
  156. bear http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Verify
  157. Will succinct
  158. bear I liked the short/simple one for Interop
  159. stpeter heh
  160. bear so went with that flavour
  161. bear I had a good set of talks with the moz folks who are working on backend systems last week
  162. stpeter BTW we have an interop@xmpp.org list if we want to use it http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/interop
  163. bear I think that mailing list would be perfect
  164. Florian +1
  165. Will this is terribly rude but i have to go in a minute or two, have we decided and is there anything more to discuss?
  166. stpeter don't want to spam standards@
  167. stpeter Will: I think we're done for now
  168. bear not rude at all Will - perfectly timed as I think we are close to being done officially
  169. Florian yup :)
  170. bear so +1 to a verification suite to be driven by XSF?
  171. Will well, it is kind of cheeky as i forgot to turn up on time :-)
  172. Will +1
  173. stpeter :)
  174. stpeter easy enough to set up a separate git repository once we have code
  175. bear cool
  176. luca tagliaferri has left
  177. bear I would love to take point on this along with anyone else
  178. dwd Is that possible? Surely you either take point, or you don't? Otherwise it's not a "point", as such...
  179. Florian I'd be happy to help
  180. stpeter bear: I might be able to interest some folks in Cisco to help
  181. bear loves having folks like dwd in his life
  182. stpeter and I'll commit to putting time into this, too
  183. Kev dwd: That'd be to 'take blob', wouldn't it?
  184. Kev Or 'take disorganised heap' or such.
  185. dwd Kev, Or "take blunt".
  186. Kev Or that.
  187. stpeter maybe I could learn some lua (or re-learn some Python) along the way :)
  188. Florian lol
  189. bear well, I fubar'd GSoC this season so I want to redeem myself
  190. dwd Kev, But this is a "pointless" discussion.
  191. dwd is particularly pleased with that one.
  192. stpeter :P
  193. Florian :p
  194. bear well done!
  195. bear oozes his blob over dwd and kev in hopes of blunting any further puns
  196. stpeter must be missing some context
  197. Will has left
  198. bear ok now :) - we have agreed on that
  199. bear any further items to discuss?
  200. Florian not from my end
  201. stpeter bear: once we have a basic wiki page describing the project, I can send a message to standards@xmpp.org and jdev@jabber.org (plus the members list)
  202. bear cool
  203. Florian awesome
  204. bear deadline of next board meeting to have wiki page done?
  205. Florian sounds good
  206. bear or do you want 2 meetings worth of time?
  207. stpeter sure
  208. stpeter I think a week is enough
  209. bear k
  210. stpeter at least for the basic description
  211. bear thanks
  212. stpeter bear: we also (still) have xmpp:interop@muc.xmpp.org
  213. dwd Is there a plan for verifying the verifier? Like, having leave to appeal to Council to review any discrepencies, or something?
  214. bear I think we would have to have the council certify it
  215. Florian indeed
  216. bear (this also will give the next council something very interesting to look forward to)
  217. dwd I think you'd need to have them on-hand to check results, especially in the case where the verifier complains and the implementor disputes it.
  218. bear +1
  219. Florian +1
  220. bear they would be the final authority - because that would also drive changes to the specs
  221. dwd bear, Well, I'm not sure - mostly, it'd probably find bugs in the verifier or its libraries.
  222. stpeter bear: yes, I think this will drive some fixes to the specs, better lists of testable features (along the lines of what's in RFC 6120), etc.
  223. stpeter dwd: true
  224. bear :) - I'm being optimistic that the verifier will be perfect!
  225. bear coughs and returns to reality
  226. stpeter who's the room owner for interop@muc.xmpp.org?
  227. Florian good question
  228. dwd stpeter, Kev?
  229. dwd stpeter, He more or less ran the last Interop.
  230. jack has left
  231. jack has joined
  232. Kev Possibly me, I guess.
  233. stpeter yeah
  234. Kev Nope.
  235. bear has joined
  236. Kev has joined
  237. bear has left
  238. bear has joined
  239. Florian has joined
  240. dwd has joined
  241. stpeter has joined
  242. stpeter bear: I've edited the minutes at http://typewith.me/xsf
  243. stpeter I think they're good to go now
  244. bear yep, been watching
  245. stpeter heh ok :)
  246. bear cool - i'll send them out now
  247. stpeter thanks!
  248. stpeter I'm psyched
  249. bear thanks
  250. bear me also - will be a nice fall/winter project
  251. stpeter heh ... winterop? ;-)
  252. Florian :D
  253. stpeter goes back to reviewing Internet-Drafts for tomorrow's IESG telechat
  254. bear goes back to herding Tegra250 boards
  255. stpeter :)
  256. stpeter you and I are heading in opposite directions :)
  257. bear yea, I'm in very barren lands it seems
  258. Kooda has joined
  259. stpeter Neustradamus: I fixed the "www.xmpp.org" stuff in the XEP Python scripts
  260. Neustradamus has joined
  261. Neustradamus stpeter: ok :)
  262. Neustradamus for emails or proposal XEPs ?
  263. stpeter Neustradamus: I will soon be AFK for a few hours but I will be back later
  264. Neustradamus it is possible to modify the theme of xmpp.org and jabber.org ?
  265. Neustradamus In the theme folder / misc/nav-posts.php <div class="pagination"> <span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('&laquo; Previous', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> <span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Next &raquo;', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> </div> change to <div class="pagination"> <span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('&laquo; Next', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> <span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Previous &raquo;', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> </div>
  266. Neustradamus stpeter: ok :)
  267. stpeter Neustradamus: for inbox proposals, last calls, and deferred specs
  268. Neustradamus :)
  269. stpeter Neustradamus: those were the only scripts that still had www
  270. stpeter Neustradamus: I think that might be fixed in a more recent version of the theme, so the first step is to upgrade
  271. Neustradamus an example of pages: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind.html
  272. Neustradamus the redirection is not updated (not alone)
  273. stpeter some of those do not redirect for historical reasons -- we want to keep the old versions online
  274. stpeter ah, I see
  275. Neustradamus you see :)
  276. stpeter yeah, we can fix that in the lighttpd config
  277. Neustradamus not directly in the page ?
  278. stpeter about http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/ -- yes we keep those old versions around (or don't put the time into fixing them)
  279. Neustradamus I found new old addresses: http://www.jabber.org/tmp/ (redirect to http://www.jabber.org/ ?) http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/ (http://logs.jabber.org/ now?)
  280. Neustradamus ok
  281. stpeter no, easier to fix that in the server config -- I don't want to change every one of the old .html files
  282. stpeter bbiab
  283. Neustradamus ok
  284. Neustradamus I found a "very" old page: http://www.jabber.org/service-policy/ Personal Eventing Protocol has been removed... Can you add a XMPP URI for jabber@conference.jabber.org ? Change the part with 5223 port... Change "<http://logs.jabber.org/>" to http://logs.jabber.org/ Change "JabberID" to "Jabber ID" Change "policy will be posted at www.jabber.org and" to "policy will be posted at jabber.org and t" (remove www.) In "How to Contact Us" part : there is a link to http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=21 (dead) Update old xmpp.org links to new links On http://www.jabber.org/about/ http://www.jabber.org/index.php/network/ to http://www.jabber.org/network/ http://www.jabber.org/index.php/download-a-client/ to http://www.jabber.org/download-a-client/ Update http://xmpp.org/services/ to http://xmpp.org/resources/public-services/ Update other xmpp.org links on other pages. http://xmpp.org/extensions/all.shtml is dead ?
  285. Neustradamus Kev: http://logs.jabber.org/ it is possible to have same logs for all? old and new?
  286. stpeter Neustradamus: why does it matter that we have old links with index.php in them? they redirect just fine!
  287. stpeter that's why we set up redirects :)
  288. stpeter time for lunch here...
  289. Neustradamus stpeter: ok ok for logs
  290. Neustradamus stpeter: you can close http://tracker.xmpp.org/browse/ITEAM-12 ;)
  291. Neustradamus about logs, there are double... http://logs.jabber.org/ and http://logs.jabber.org/old/ there are same.
  292. Neustradamus and http://logs.jabber.org/new/ too :D
  293. stpeter ok
  294. stpeter now I really need to be away for a while
  295. stpeter Neustradamus: jabber.org is *not* an XSF service, so please post about that in the jabber@conference.jabber.org room
  296. stpeter bbl
  297. Neustradamus stpeter: yes
  298. Astro has joined
  299. Astro hi
  300. Astro will all validator-relevant stuff be posted on interop@?
  301. bear astro - most likely yes
  302. bear and please do poke us if you notice anything not on interop@
  303. Astro great
  304. Astro maybe the node.js xmpp-server is going to be ready for interop testing at next fosdem
  305. bear sweet!
  306. MiGri has joined