Thursday, October 05, 2017
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
October
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
            1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
         
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[00:14:01] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[00:19:47] *** Guus has left the room
[00:19:49] *** Guus shows as "online"
[00:25:20] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[00:25:24] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[00:25:27] *** Tobias has left the room
[00:33:02] *** Wiktor has left the room
[00:33:09] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[00:37:36] *** Tobias has left the room
[00:40:49] *** jere has left the room
[00:40:56] *** jere has joined the room
[00:41:48] *** waqas has left the room
[00:44:23] *** Tobias has joined the room
[00:45:17] *** Valerian has left the room
[00:45:26] *** Valerian has joined the room
[00:45:49] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[00:45:53] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[00:50:10] *** Tobias has left the room
[00:50:33] *** lovetox has left the room
[00:55:27] *** tux shows as "online"
[01:02:23] *** Valerian has left the room
[01:04:23] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[01:05:15] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[01:18:20] *** tux has left the room
[01:20:00] *** lskdjf has left the room
[01:20:04] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[01:20:44] *** tux shows as "online"
[01:20:57] *** tux has left the room
[01:24:40] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[01:24:42] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[01:24:48] *** tux has left the room
[01:24:50] *** tux has joined the room
[01:26:51] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[01:32:46] *** efrit has left the room
[01:41:41] *** tim@boese-ban.de has left the room
[01:41:46] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[01:48:40] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[01:48:40] *** intosi has left the room
[02:00:56] *** jjrh has left the room
[02:00:59] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[02:05:53] *** Lance has joined the room
[02:05:55] *** Lance shows as "online"
[02:06:00] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:06:00] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[02:06:01] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[02:06:03] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[02:06:09] *** Lance has left the room
[02:06:17] *** Lance has joined the room
[02:06:17] *** Lance shows as "online"
[02:06:48] *** jjrh has left the room
[02:06:51] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[02:07:43] *** waqas has joined the room
[02:09:15] *** Lance has left the room
[02:16:44] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[02:18:17] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:18:21] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:42:14] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[02:56:11] *** jjrh has left the room
[02:56:13] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[02:58:16] *** jjrh has left the room
[02:58:19] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[03:03:53] *** jjrh has left the room
[03:04:22] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[03:04:49] *** jjrh has left the room
[03:04:51] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[03:07:19] *** tim@boese-ban.de has left the room
[03:08:17] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[03:08:21] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[03:11:05] *** Tobias has left the room
[03:14:13] *** tux has left the room
[03:14:15] *** tux has joined the room
[03:17:08] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[03:25:29] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[03:26:27] *** jere has left the room
[03:26:33] *** jere has joined the room
[03:34:40] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[03:46:07] *** nyco has left the room
[03:46:13] *** nyco shows as "online"
[03:52:32] *** zinid has left the room
[03:59:23] *** zinid has joined the room
[04:00:51] *** jjrh has left the room
[04:00:53] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[04:01:16] *** jjrh has left the room
[04:01:36] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[04:04:26] *** jere has left the room
[04:04:38] *** jere has joined the room
[04:05:07] *** SamWhited has left the room
[04:06:40] *** jjrh has left the room
[04:06:42] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[04:22:01] *** daniel has joined the room
[04:23:42] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[04:23:49] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:24:17] *** sezuan has joined the room
[04:26:24] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:26:44] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:27:48] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:30:12] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:31:28] *** McKael shows as "online"
[04:32:25] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:37:17] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:37:32] *** uc has joined the room
[04:37:40] *** daniel has left the room
[04:38:33] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:39:01] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:40:21] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:40:44] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:41:31] *** zinid has left the room
[04:42:16] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:42:55] *** jubalh has joined the room
[04:43:02] *** zinid has joined the room
[04:43:59] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:44:59] *** waqas has left the room
[04:46:07] *** jubalh has left the room
[04:46:10] *** jubalh has joined the room
[04:46:12] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[04:46:30] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[04:48:53] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:53:47] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[04:57:16] *** Guus has left the room
[04:59:04] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[05:03:20] *** daniel has joined the room
[05:03:35] *** uc shows as "online"
[05:06:19] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:06:42] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:08:28] *** Kev shows as "online"
[05:09:49] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:10:03] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:10:09] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[05:10:11] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[05:12:09] *** Tobias has left the room
[05:15:35] *** Guus shows as "online"
[05:19:03] *** jubalh has left the room
[05:19:56] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:20:01] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:22:34] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:22:49] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:23:50] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:24:41] *** stefandxm has left the room
[05:24:54] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:26:10] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[05:26:11] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[05:27:26] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:30:04] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:31:07] *** uc shows as "online"
[05:31:23] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:33:04] *** Kev shows as "away"
[05:34:21] *** Kev shows as "online"
[05:36:29] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:36:38] *** Guus has left the room
[05:38:23] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:38:36] *** Guus shows as "online"
[05:39:25] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:39:34] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[05:40:51] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[05:42:33] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[05:42:52] *** uc shows as "online"
[05:43:04] *** zinid shows as "dnd"
[05:43:18] <jonasw> moparisthebest, a change from SHOULD to MAY is a technical change. However, given that there has no advancement been made to the XEP yet, that’ll be fine
[05:43:21] <jonasw> I guess this is what the CFE is for
[05:43:26] *** jubalh has joined the room
[05:43:42] *** stefandxm has left the room
[05:43:55] *** Guus has left the room
[05:49:58] *** daniel has left the room
[05:51:56] <Kev> Well, it's for Council to decide whether it's fine or not, no?
[05:52:23] <jonasw> Kev, yes
[05:52:23] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[05:52:25] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[05:52:29] <jonasw> you’re right about that
[05:52:37] <jonasw> what I meant is: it is not absolutely not fine
[05:53:16] <jonasw> and also council members brought that change I assume moparisthebest will do up in the discussion, so ... ;-)
[05:53:51] *** Guus shows as "online"
[05:54:29] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[05:54:41] *** daniel has joined the room
[05:57:19] *** Guus has left the room
[05:58:32] *** goffi has joined the room
[05:59:51] *** intosi has joined the room
[06:04:14] *** tim@boese-ban.de has left the room
[06:04:18] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[06:08:18] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[06:08:21] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[06:10:49] *** Tobias has left the room
[06:12:12] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[06:14:21] *** daniel has left the room
[06:14:59] *** daniel has joined the room
[06:17:30] <Guus> Kev (others): please elevate me from member to owner on our github repo, add me to the team on dockerhub, and provide me with the twitter credentials. It'd be good to have someone else be available to help people out with requests in order to speed up things (and as I'm currently the requestee most of the time, who's also in iteam, I'd be a logical candidate).
[06:21:12] *** Guus shows as "online"
[06:23:41] *** Guus has left the room
[06:26:16] *** Guus shows as "online"
[06:26:27] <Kev> What's your name on the docker hub?
[06:28:10] *** edhelas has left the room
[06:28:11] <Kev> You've got ownership of the github org now, I'll sort out docker at some point later when I know your account, and Twitter I need to sort out password changing and distribution of the password.
[06:28:29] <Kev> Please don't change things without discussion.
[06:28:33] *** edhelas has joined the room
[06:30:36] <Guus> Thanks, I won't
[06:30:40] <Guus> I'm guusdk on dockerhub
[06:32:58] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[06:33:00] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[06:33:05] *** uc shows as "online"
[06:38:11] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:38:14] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:40:49] *** Kev shows as "away"
[06:43:50] *** daniel has left the room
[06:45:17] *** daniel has joined the room
[06:46:42] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[06:49:09] *** Guus has left the room
[06:51:06] *** Guus shows as "online"
[06:51:15] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:56:23] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[07:00:17] *** Kev has left the room
[07:00:48] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[07:02:06] *** uc shows as "online"
[07:04:02] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:04:09] *** jcbrand has joined the room
[07:07:10] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:09:28] *** nyco has left the room
[07:09:34] *** nyco shows as "online"
[07:13:11] *** tux shows as "dnd" and his status message is "Work work …"
[07:19:46] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:21:58] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:24:27] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[07:25:30] *** sezuan has left the room
[07:34:13] *** Wiktor shows as "online"
[07:34:31] *** Kev shows as "away"
[07:37:03] *** sonny has joined the room
[07:39:57] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[07:39:57] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[07:41:22] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:44:05] *** jcbrand has left the room
[07:45:53] *** winfried shows as "online"
[07:46:18] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[07:49:26] *** zinid has left the room
[07:49:35] *** zinid has left the room
[07:49:59] *** zinid has joined the room
[07:50:00] *** zinid shows as "online"
[07:50:29] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:52:21] *** winfried shows as "online"
[07:54:32] *** winfried has left the room
[07:54:33] *** winfried shows as "online"
[07:54:59] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[07:54:59] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[07:57:29] *** uc shows as "online"
[07:58:19] *** jubalh has joined the room
[08:00:29] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:07:40] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[08:09:57] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[08:09:57] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[08:10:43] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:11:41] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[08:13:17] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[08:17:00] *** winfried has left the room
[08:20:10] *** Martin has joined the room
[08:23:44] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:24:57] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[08:24:59] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[08:32:33] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:34:37] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[08:36:01] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:38:43] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[08:38:44] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[08:39:57] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[08:39:57] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[08:43:55] *** winfried has left the room
[08:46:14] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[08:47:51] *** Zash shows as "online"
[08:47:53] *** Zash shows as "online"
[08:48:09] *** Zash has left the room
[08:48:10] *** Zash shows as "online"
[08:48:11] *** Zash shows as "online"
[08:48:59] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[08:49:01] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[08:49:11] *** winfried has joined the room
[08:51:27] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:53:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:54:36] *** pep. shows as "online"
[08:57:14] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[08:57:14] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[08:57:26] *** zinid has left the room
[08:58:50] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[08:58:52] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[08:59:27] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[09:00:06] *** zinid shows as "online"
[09:01:24] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[09:04:52] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:04:55] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:05:25] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:05:27] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[09:06:05] *** zinid has left the room
[09:08:14] *** zinid shows as "online"
[09:09:44] *** McKael shows as "online"
[09:12:14] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[09:12:15] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[09:12:19] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:14:36] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[09:15:07] *** Martin shows as "online"
[09:15:15] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:15:45] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:15:45] *** Martin has left the room
[09:16:32] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:16:35] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:21:21] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[09:25:02] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[09:25:38] *** Guus has left the room
[09:26:38] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:29:32] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:29:33] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[09:29:46] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[09:29:46] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[09:30:35] *** Guus shows as "online"
[09:33:27] *** winfried shows as "online"
[09:36:30] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:36:37] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:37:14] *** Martin has joined the room
[09:37:16] *** Martin shows as "online"
[09:39:41] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:42:27] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:42:30] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:42:33] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[09:42:33] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[09:43:08] *** lumi has joined the room
[09:43:31] *** andrey.g has left the room
[09:45:33] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:45:36] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[09:46:11] *** sonny has left the room
[09:47:26] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[09:47:29] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:47:50] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[09:50:56] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:53:46] *** uc shows as "online"
[09:54:16] *** lovetox has joined the room
[09:55:02] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:55:04] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[09:55:16] *** winfried shows as "online"
[09:55:57] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[09:56:48] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:57:12] *** stefandxm has left the room
[09:57:35] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[09:57:35] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[09:58:51] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:00:23] *** lovetox has left the room
[10:00:56] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:03:05] *** lovetox has joined the room
[10:03:53] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[10:05:48] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[10:08:41] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:09:51] *** winfried shows as "online"
[10:11:59] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[10:12:01] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[10:16:05] <Guus> when establishing (direct) ssl, is more than one socket connection involved (is a connection re-established?)
[10:16:36] *** zinid has left the room
[10:17:03] *** matlag has left the room
[10:17:22] *** matlag has joined the room
[10:18:41] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:19:29] *** zinid shows as "online"
[10:19:55] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[10:21:51] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:24:37] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:25:30] *** zinid has left the room
[10:26:34] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[10:26:50] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:27:31] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[10:28:12] *** Alex has joined the room
[10:28:39] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[10:28:46] *** Alex shows as "online"
[10:30:37] <jonasw> Guus, no
[10:30:45] *** Guus has left the room
[10:30:46] <jonasw> you start TLS over the existing TCP connection
[10:30:53] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[10:30:55] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:31:10] <Zash> Just like STARTTLS, except without the negotiation
[10:31:17] *** zinid shows as "online"
[10:31:23] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[10:31:26] <Guus> sounds like it's time to shout at apache mina again then
[10:33:46] <Link Mauve> Zash, s/without \(.*\)/with \1 done by the TLS library instead of by the XMPP one/
[10:34:52] <Zash> That hurt my head
[10:35:12] *** lovetox has left the room
[10:35:17] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:35:19] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:35:30] <Zash> Depends on how your libraries work I guess
[10:35:42] *** stefandxm has left the room
[10:36:50] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:36:51] *** Martin shows as "online"
[10:36:55] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:38:18] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:38:40] *** Martin shows as "online"
[10:40:59] *** lumi has left the room
[10:41:41] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:45:06] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[10:45:06] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[10:48:59] *** Kev has left the room
[10:49:32] *** Guus has left the room
[10:49:59] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:50:10] *** Zash has left the room
[10:50:10] *** Zash has left the room
[10:51:41] *** Zash has joined the room
[10:51:41] *** Zash shows as "online"
[10:52:30] *** winfried has joined the room
[10:54:01] *** winfried shows as "online"
[10:56:02] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:57:00] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[10:59:02] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:00:46] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:03:39] *** Guus has left the room
[11:04:10] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:10:03] <Ge0rG> It's a great way to shave off some round-trips, though
[11:10:30] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:11:49] *** Guus has left the room
[11:13:13] *** jubalh has joined the room
[11:13:48] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:16:43] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:18:52] *** jubalh has left the room
[11:19:32] *** Alex has left the room
[11:20:05] <Ge0rG> Kev: "undesirable"... I love your choice of words!
[11:21:23] *** Alex has joined the room
[11:21:24] <jonasw> undesirable in that context might be the XMPP-related understatement of the decade :-)
[11:21:32] <Ge0rG> Kev: killing GC1 was brought up to the council, but without a well worded motivation. I also agree we need to kill it, but it is to some degree a better resync mechanism than nothing at all.
[11:21:52] <Kev> It is definitely better than nothing at all.
[11:22:19] <Kev> I've long held that opinion. But if we're providing something better now, maybe it can retire.
[11:22:31] <Ge0rG> Kev: except when you end up seeing ghosts in the MUC.
[11:22:35] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:23:04] *** zinid has left the room
[11:23:08] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:23:12] <Kev> You see ghosts in the MUC with or without gc1 joins, without another mechanism.
[11:23:20] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:23:21] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:23:24] *** intosi shows as "online"
[11:23:25] <Kev> Without gc1, everyone you see (as a client) is a ghost :)
[11:24:11] *** lumi has joined the room
[11:24:53] <Ge0rG> Kev: yes, but then you realize that as soon as you send a message.
[11:25:13] <Kev> That is true.
[11:25:29] <Ge0rG> Kev: my point is that it's not always better than nothing.
[11:25:43] <Zash> If we get rid of gc1, isn't a normal presence the same as <presence><I-expect-to-still-be-in-the-room/></p>
[11:26:11] <Kev> If you're referring to (3), then no.
[11:26:13] <jonasw> Zash, yes, but we can’t simply get rid of GC1, can we?
[11:26:20] <Zash> Can we?
[11:26:20] <Kev> jonasw: Can't we? :)
[11:26:27] <jonasw> Kev, council was against it.
[11:26:33] *** zinid shows as "online"
[11:26:35] <jonasw> I mean, we can re-try, but ...
[11:26:49] <jonasw> speaking of council, still no (re-)applications?
[11:26:55] <Kev> Council may have been against it when there wasn't a better option, they may not be after this.
[11:27:13] <Kev> Only Joe Demo, by the look of it.
[11:27:33] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:27:34] <Kev> I hear good things about that guy.
[11:27:46] <jonasw> like Boaty McBoatface?
[11:28:02] <Ge0rG> Again, I want to propose Boardy McBoardface for Council.
[11:28:16] <jonasw> not Council McCouncilface?
[11:28:32] <Ge0rG> jonasw: no. C McC should apply for Board instead.
[11:29:33] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[11:30:21] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:30:28] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:30:54] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[11:31:10] <jonasw> for maximum confusion, I see
[11:31:32] <Ge0rG> I wonder if I should apply for Council, and then try to aggressively push the XMPP 2.0 / Easy Jabber agenda.
[11:31:35] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[11:31:36] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[11:31:56] <Ge0rG> Killing GC1.0 would be my major campain promise.
[11:32:27] <jonasw> hm, one can’t really make promises, can one?
[11:32:31] <jonasw> when running for council
[11:32:38] *** zinid has left the room
[11:32:55] <jonasw> (well, one can... but in the end it all depends on who else gets elected. then again, that’s the same for all elections)
[11:34:14] *** zinid shows as "online"
[11:36:21] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:37:10] *** Guus has left the room
[11:40:33] <Kev> I kinda think that what xmpp2/easyjabber needs most, in some ways, is implementation and deployment experience.
[11:40:55] *** andrey.g has left the room
[11:40:57] <jonasw> you can’t really do implementation without some specification
[11:41:02] <Kev> Of course you can.
[11:41:13] <Zash> Just type code into your thing!
[11:41:15] <Kev> You try something and see if it works.
[11:41:16] <jonasw> well, you shouldn’t
[11:41:18] <jonasw> hm
[11:41:21] <Kev> Also, completely untrue.
[11:41:31] <Zash> So you are a specification before implementation person?
[11:41:39] <Kev> Protocol documents based on people actually trying things is a jolly good thing.
[11:41:47] <Zash> Some are the other way around. Some think both at the same time!
[11:41:48] <jonasw> yeah, I see where you’re coming from
[11:42:29] <Kev> Everything has its place. Except the things that don't.
[11:42:33] <jonasw> I’m not necessarily, but Session 2.0 is a thing where many parties need to play together, so there needs some kind of coordination, that is, specification, on what the parties implement each
[11:42:50] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[11:42:53] <Kev> jonasw: Nothing says that has to happen in advance.
[11:42:59] *** jubalh has joined the room
[11:43:00] <Ge0rG> Kev: I could implement Session 2.0, but then it would only work for IM.
[11:43:17] <Kev> e.g. if I had spare person-hours, I'd have something that worked implemented in M-Link and the Swifts, and we could use that experience to feed into the specs.
[11:44:14] <Kev> Ge0rG: Sure. But 'try stuff and see if it works' doesn't mean 'specify what was implemented and treat it as set in stone because you coded some prototype'.
[11:45:52] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:46:11] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[11:46:25] *** Guus has left the room
[11:46:42] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[11:46:43] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[11:47:52] <Ge0rG> Kev: I also need to read up what I have "proclaimed" in the last two years under the "MUC-subscription" label. I think it's all the same basic idea, and maybe I forgot something important in the last iteration
[11:48:13] <jonasw> itym MAM-subcsription
[11:48:27] <Ge0rG> jonasw: right. Sorry. I won't LMC that now.
[11:49:59] <Kev> Ge0rG: I *think* the important thing there is simply that everything that's chat-related you want both in your archive and on all your devices.
[11:50:13] <Kev> So all we need to do is achieve that :D
[11:50:27] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:51:04] <Zash> So how do we determine if a message is "chat-related"?
[11:51:20] <Kev> I did the hard work of coming up with the high-level direction. Someone else can work on the details.
[11:51:23] <Zash> type=chat would have been nice
[11:51:51] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:53:54] <Ge0rG> Kev: you are a genius! Why didn't anyone else think of that before? :D
[11:54:14] <Ge0rG> Zash: 0184 and CSNs happen to be type=random.
[11:54:15] *** nyco has left the room
[11:54:45] <jonasw> also, what about type=normal? :)
[11:54:47] <Zash> Aren't those chat related?
[11:54:50] *** Guus has left the room
[11:54:53] <Ge0rG> Zash: maybe they are.
[11:54:57] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:54:58] <jonasw> that certainly has messaging use-cases too, and wouldn’t you want to sync them, too?
[11:54:58] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[11:55:04] <Ge0rG> jonasw: chat is the new normal.
[11:55:09] <jonasw> that’s your opinio.n
[11:55:13] <jonasw> ;-)
[11:55:16] <Ge0rG> jonasw: that's what implementations do
[11:55:24] <jonasw> because no implemntation has a UI for type=normal
[11:55:26] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[11:55:31] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:55:37] <jonasw> except pidgins "let’s show this in a separate window focus stealingly" counts as UI
[11:56:19] <Ge0rG> jonasw: I think many client authors don't care about "normal" vs. "chat", and end up sending non-body messages with "normal"
[11:56:35] <jonasw> meh.
[11:56:45] <Ge0rG> Like for example ACKs.
[11:56:46] <Zash> -xep 304
[11:56:46] <Bunneh> Zash: XEP-0304: Whitespace Keepalive Negotiation (Standards Track, Deferred, 2011-08-18)
See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0304.html
[11:56:57] *** nyco shows as "online"
[11:57:32] <Ge0rG> jonasw: also guess which message type is mandated by [xep 0184]
[11:57:40] <jonasw> "whatever works"?
[11:57:53] <Zash> Ge0rG: {}
[11:58:28] <Ge0rG> Zash: -ETOOMANYDIFFERENTBOTS
[11:58:39] <Zash> Bots bots bots
[11:58:52] <Ge0rG> can't we just have all bot react to all patterns, instead of putting the cognitive load onto people?
[11:59:05] <Zash> Wasn't both 184 and csn using the standard reply pattern? Ie same type
[11:59:27] <Ge0rG> -xep standard reply pattern
[11:59:27] <Bunneh> Ge0rG: XEP-0068: Field Standardization for Data Forms (Informational, Active, 2012-05-28)
See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0068.html
[11:59:40] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[12:00:24] <Zash> Copy attributes, swap to/from. If it's an error, set type=error.
[12:00:45] <Ge0rG> Zash: There is no such primitive in the XMPP lib I'm using.
[12:01:00] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:01:41] <jonasw> Ge0rG, switch XMPP libs then!
[12:02:01] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[12:02:01] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[12:02:21] <jonasw> Zash, also, you shouldn’t be copying the @id for anything except IQ, I think
[12:02:22] <Ge0rG> Zash: I'm not even convinced this is a good thing, generally. Maybe type=headline would be more appropriate for ACKs and CSNs?
[12:02:48] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[12:03:01] <Kev> I think acks you probably want stored in your archive, while CSNs you certainly don't.
[12:03:13] <Zash> Kev: Are you sure?
[12:03:25] <Ge0rG> Right. ACKs need to be archived.
[12:03:27] <Kev> Actually, I'm fairly sure you want something more sophisticated than just putting acks in your archive, but I'm not sure how revolutionary I should be today.
[12:03:40] <jonasw> Kev, as much as possible, of course.
[12:03:50] <Ge0rG> Kev: it's all about synchronizing a chat database.
[12:04:07] <Ge0rG> Kev: yes please. Make the most revolutionary proposal you can imagine.
[12:04:15] *** winfried has joined the room
[12:04:45] <Kev> Have your server handle your acks for you. Also have the server archive read receipt status for your messages.
[12:05:07] <Kev> Have the ability to collate messages that operate on each other in the archive, so they can be returned as state on the MAM results.
[12:05:10] <Ge0rG> Kev: I think MAM would be indeed a good place to send 0184 acks, from the bare JID
[12:05:26] <Kev> Delivered, Read, LMC. Store them, but on the message they affect, not on their own.
[12:05:33] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:05:42] <Ge0rG> Kev: that message collation would work much better if we had properly-generated UUIDs
[12:06:00] <Ge0rG> Does "unique" also mean that there should be only one UUID per message?
[12:06:00] <Zash> Kev: I object to anything that makes it impossible to do MAM in an append-only log store thing.
[12:06:32] <Ge0rG> Kev: BTW that almost sounds like a multi-table relational database
[12:06:43] <Zash> I object to anything that requires a relational database.
[12:07:19] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:07:23] <Ge0rG> Zash: better apply for Council now, then
[12:07:23] *** Alex shows as "online"
[12:09:08] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[12:09:13] <Kev> I think the most sensible way to implement MAM is with a database of some description. But clearly it's not needed.
[12:11:10] <Ge0rG> Kev: how would clients synchronize? Atomic replacement of [Message, Delivered, Read, [LMCs], [Reactions]] n-tuples? Or do we need a separate chronological history?
[12:11:29] <Kev> Synchronise in which sense?
[12:11:34] <Ge0rG> This is again the fully-synchronized fat client vs. load-on-demand thin client debate I think
[12:11:53] <Kev> Possibly.
[12:12:10] <Ge0rG> For load-on-demand it makes sense to initially query for n-tuples, and then to receive a stream of deltas.
[12:12:25] <Ge0rG> For fat clients it makes sense to receive a stream of stored deltas, followed by live deltas.
[12:12:27] *** Martin shows as "online"
[12:12:36] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[12:12:51] <Kev> That is possibly true.
[12:13:05] <Ge0rG> Now this is another thing I had in MAM-sync: push of MAM-IDs for sent messages.
[12:13:06] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[12:13:06] *** Martin has left the room
[12:13:07] *** uc shows as "online"
[12:14:01] <jonasw> isn’t that already a thing in {XEP 0280}?
[12:14:04] <jonasw> damnit
[12:14:16] <Zash> -xep carbons
[12:14:16] <Ge0rG> jonasw: no
[12:14:16] <Bunneh> Zash: XEP-0280: Message Carbons (Standards Track, Proposed, 2017-02-16)
See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html
[12:14:24] <jonasw> no, I misremember
[12:14:43] <Ge0rG> jonasw: I tried to bring that up a year ago or two, and there were very loud voices arguing against that, because of sysload
[12:14:50] *** Yagiza has joined the room
[12:14:52] <Zash> I think someone (mattj?) suggested a carbons extension/change where you'd get your own messages reflected back
[12:14:52] <jonasw> what
[12:15:00] <Zash> syswhat
[12:15:00] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[12:15:11] <Kev> I'm not entirely convinced that just mirroring the entire (annotated) stanza back isn't sensible.
[12:15:20] <Ge0rG> If I were redoing XMPP, I'd glue together session, MAM ID reflection and 0198
[12:15:28] *** lumi has left the room
[12:16:02] <Ge0rG> Kev: maybe except for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html#message
[12:16:24] <jonasw> what’s session in this context?
[12:16:46] <Ge0rG> jonasw: that thing you bind.
[12:17:15] <jonasw> ah
[12:17:23] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:17:46] <Ge0rG> jonasw: what I mean is: have a separate session type (XMPP2, MAM-sub or whatever you name it), which replaces carbons and 0198 with a logic that feeds back MAM IDs for sent messages and either Carbons or direct messages of all incoming data
[12:18:06] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[12:18:06] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[12:18:13] <Ge0rG> I'm not opposed to the Carbons wire format, just the current processing logic is insane.
[12:18:55] <jonasw> sounds reasonable
[12:19:01] <jonasw> still possible to do that even without redoing xmpp
[12:19:42] <Kev> Everything's possible without redoing xmpp :)
[12:19:54] <Ge0rG> jonasw: still doesn't solve the persistency/urgency problem.
[12:20:01] *** Alex shows as "online"
[12:21:49] <jonasw> Ge0rG, that needs fixes to MAM, Carbons, CSI and Push. All of which aren’t final yet, right?
[12:22:36] <Ge0rG> jonasw: are there any final XEPs at all? I thought Draft is the new Final.
[12:23:01] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:23:12] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:23:47] <jonasw> XEP-0030 :)
[12:23:52] <jonasw> (for example)
[12:24:20] <moparisthebest> I'm pushing to make 368 final
[12:24:33] <moparisthebest> but also considering I nor any current editors have ever seen a move to final
[12:24:37] <moparisthebest> no
[12:25:04] *** valo has joined the room
[12:25:04] <jonasw> moparisthebest, no worries :)
[12:25:17] <jonasw> just prepare your PR and see what council says.
[12:25:36] *** lumi has joined the room
[12:25:40] <moparisthebest> yea I'm just agreeing with Ge0rG here, final isn't a thing, draft is final
[12:26:12] *** daniel has left the room
[12:26:21] *** daniel has joined the room
[12:28:36] *** jere has joined the room
[12:29:49] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:30:08] *** daniel has left the room
[12:30:25] *** daniel has joined the room
[12:36:08] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[12:36:08] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[12:36:14] <Kev> I think that might have something to do with our habit of getting something 'good enough' but not quite right, and so not being willing to advance it further.
[12:37:50] *** Guus has left the room
[12:38:17] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:39:47] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:44:46] *** daniel has left the room
[12:44:47] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[12:44:56] *** daniel has joined the room
[12:46:58] *** sonny has joined the room
[12:47:11] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[12:47:11] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[12:49:15] *** Guus shows as "online"
[12:49:38] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[12:49:38] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:49:47] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:51:13] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:51:29] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[12:51:40] *** Yagiza shows as "away" and his status message is "Автостатус из-за бездействия более чем 10 минут"
[12:56:21] *** uc has joined the room
[12:58:06] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:58:57] *** winfried has joined the room
[12:58:58] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:59:01] *** winfried shows as "online"
[13:00:10] *** lumi has left the room
[13:00:49] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[13:01:21] *** waqas has joined the room
[13:01:51] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[13:01:52] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[13:03:02] *** Martin has joined the room
[13:09:07] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:09:15] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:16:47] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[13:16:48] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[13:19:10] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:21:09] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:22:16] *** Wiktor has left the room
[13:22:41] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[13:26:14] *** Wiktor shows as "online"
[13:26:17] *** Flow has joined the room
[13:28:35] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:31:26] *** Wiktor has left the room
[13:31:36] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[13:33:16] *** Flow has left the room
[13:35:42] *** Flow has joined the room
[13:37:14] *** stefandxm has left the room
[13:38:15] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[13:39:10] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:39:37] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[13:42:32] <Flow> isn't the question what the benefit of final XEPs is, over draft XEPs?
[13:42:43] <Flow> as far as I can tell, final only has disadvantages
[13:43:46] *** Kev shows as "away"
[13:45:02] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:46:38] <jonasw> Flow, what advantages does Draft have over Experimental? :)
[13:47:29] <Flow> jonasw: another review round at least by the council and probably by the xmpp community
[13:47:44] <jonasw> okay
[13:47:50] <jonasw> then final probably doesn’t bring you anything :)
[13:48:02] <Flow> plus at least so und so many implementations IIRC
[13:49:38] <jonasw> that’s only with Final IIRC
[13:50:06] <Flow> ahh right
[13:51:28] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[13:52:59] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[13:53:27] <Flow> ok, so after reading xep1 once more and to sum up: final has the disadvantage that no namespace bumps can be made, which is probably not an issue (see ecaps2). And the advantage that feedback was given and there are multiple interoperable implementations required
[13:53:39] <Flow> (I was thinking that this was for draft)
[13:54:14] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[13:54:44] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[13:55:02] *** jubalh has joined the room
[13:56:43] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:00:07] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:05:27] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:05:28] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:06:52] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[14:07:16] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:08:45] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:08:52] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:09:28] *** Alex shows as "online"
[14:14:45] *** daniel has left the room
[14:14:55] *** daniel has joined the room
[14:15:55] *** uc shows as "online"
[14:16:00] *** intosi shows as "online"
[14:16:02] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[14:16:30] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[14:16:30] *** intosi has left the room
[14:16:35] *** Martin shows as "online"
[14:16:50] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[14:17:20] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[14:17:20] *** Martin has left the room
[14:18:22] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[14:18:25] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:20:06] *** jubalh has left the room
[14:20:56] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:21:38] *** jubalh has joined the room
[14:22:50] *** Martin has joined the room
[14:23:11] *** jubalh has left the room
[14:23:13] *** jubalh has joined the room
[14:29:55] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[14:33:18] *** daniel has left the room
[14:35:15] <Ge0rG> There is no technical difference between a namespace bump and a new namespace, so why are we forbidding them?
[14:35:49] *** intosi has joined the room
[14:36:34] *** stefandxm has left the room
[14:37:11] <SamWhited> Ge0rG: they are not treated differently, changing the namespace is forbidden in final.
[14:37:46] <Ge0rG> SamWhited: yes, so we end up with a new XEP with a new namespace instead.
[14:38:16] <SamWhited> Ge0rG: Yes, that's the point, after something has reached final if you want to replace it you need to create a new XEP.
[14:38:20] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:38:41] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:38:58] <Ge0rG> SamWhited: yes, I'm merely questioning the wisdom of that
[14:40:13] <SamWhited> I don't even know where to begin with that… you want XEPs to never stabalize? We have enough problems with people not wanting to implement experimental XEPs because they're a moving target without saying that all XEPs have the potential to change and break compatibility and fragment the ecosystem at any time.
[14:40:56] <SamWhited> I'm all for going to final slowly, it's nice to have the flexibility to change things, but at some point when things are widely implemented we need to stop breaking compatibility and call it "good enough".
[14:40:56] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[14:41:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:42:12] *** Flow has left the room
[14:43:17] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[14:43:18] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:47:55] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:48:33] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:59:21] *** Flow has joined the room
[14:59:31] *** daniel has joined the room
[14:59:42] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[15:02:50] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[15:02:59] *** Alex shows as "online"
[15:05:27] *** Guus has left the room
[15:06:59] *** Flow has left the room
[15:09:42] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:09:57] *** lumi has joined the room
[15:10:57] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:13:38] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:13:44] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:16:25] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[15:16:35] *** Guus has left the room
[15:19:16] <Ge0rG> SamWhited: I'm just some random smartass, questioning everything. But I also wondered if other parts of our process might be improvable.
[15:19:28] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:19:28] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:19:30] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:21:45] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:22:13] *** Guus has left the room
[15:24:00] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:25:16] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:25:16] *** Ge0rG shows as "away"
[15:26:49] *** Yagiza shows as "away" and his status message is "Автостатус из-за бездействия более чем 10 минут"
[15:26:58] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[15:27:37] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:29:45] *** Guus has left the room
[15:31:40] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:31:42] *** stefandxm has left the room
[15:35:07] *** savostin has joined the room
[15:51:01] *** nyco has left the room
[15:52:12] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[15:52:20] *** nyco shows as "online"
[15:55:35] *** Guus has left the room
[15:57:07] *** matlag shows as "online"
[15:57:12] *** matlag has left the room
[15:57:49] *** Martin has left the room
[15:57:49] *** Martin has joined the room
[15:58:18] *** matlag shows as "online"
[15:58:20] *** matlag has left the room
[15:58:43] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:59:48] *** Guus has left the room
[16:00:07] *** Martin shows as "online"
[16:00:16] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:00:46] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:00:46] *** Martin has left the room
[16:01:53] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:02:02] *** matlag shows as "online"
[16:02:13] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:02:23] *** dwd shows as "online"
[16:03:02] *** matlag has left the room
[16:03:34] <SamWhited> I definitely think there's room for improvement, but never stabalizing anything probably isn't it.
[16:03:50] *** matlag shows as "online"
[16:03:52] *** matlag has left the room
[16:04:26] *** matlag shows as "online"
[16:05:26] *** Martin has joined the room
[16:06:13] *** daniel has left the room
[16:06:19] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:07:25] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:07:48] *** mhterres has joined the room
[16:07:48] *** mhterres has left the room
[16:09:34] *** nyco has left the room
[16:11:02] *** nyco shows as "online"
[16:12:01] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[16:14:11] *** dwd shows as "online"
[16:14:39] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:14:39] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:16:37] *** matlag has left the room
[16:19:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:20:19] *** waqas has left the room
[16:21:57] *** intosi shows as "online"
[16:21:58] *** intosi shows as "online"
[16:23:15] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[16:26:20] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:26:20] *** Ge0rG shows as "away"
[16:26:24] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:26:24] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:26:42] *** jubalh has joined the room
[16:27:01] *** jubalh has joined the room
[16:30:51] *** jere has joined the room
[16:32:24] *** jubalh has left the room
[16:32:27] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:33:37] *** waqas has joined the room
[16:36:31] *** lumi has left the room
[16:37:34] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[16:37:52] *** uc shows as "online"
[16:42:23] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:42:27] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:43:34] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:43:34] *** Ge0rG shows as "away"
[16:43:35] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:43:35] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:44:42] *** Yagiza shows as "away" and his status message is "Автостатус из-за бездействия более чем 10 минут"
[16:46:06] *** sonny has left the room
[16:46:08] *** sonny has joined the room
[16:49:10] *** jjrh has left the room
[16:49:12] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[16:50:24] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:52:09] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:52:09] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:53:23] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[16:54:59] *** Yagiza has left the room
[16:55:50] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:57:10] *** intosi shows as "online"
[16:57:12] *** matlag shows as "online"
[16:57:25] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:57:53] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:57:53] *** intosi has left the room
[17:02:44] *** emxp has joined the room
[17:03:11] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:03:53] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:04:37] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[17:04:50] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:04:53] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:04:56] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:05:20] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:05:23] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:05:35] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:05:35] *** Martin has left the room
[17:05:50] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:06:13] *** Martin has joined the room
[17:06:19] *** Martin shows as "online"
[17:11:12] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:12:57] *** nyco has left the room
[17:12:59] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:13:03] *** nyco shows as "online"
[17:14:29] *** sonny has left the room
[17:14:31] *** sonny has joined the room
[17:14:40] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:14:44] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:15:16] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[17:15:17] *** Valerian has joined the room
[17:20:12] *** winfried has joined the room
[17:21:09] *** ralphm has left the room
[17:25:00] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[17:25:00] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[17:29:51] *** Valerian has left the room
[17:30:06] *** Flow has joined the room
[17:30:08] *** Flow has left the room
[17:30:09] *** Flow has joined the room
[17:30:56] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:31:24] *** stefandxm has left the room
[17:35:13] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:38:37] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:41:12] *** Valerian has joined the room
[17:42:55] *** Valerian has left the room
[17:44:32] *** winfried shows as "online"
[17:44:40] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:45:23] *** McKael shows as "online"
[17:45:39] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:51:31] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[17:55:39] *** Flow has left the room
[17:55:40] *** Flow has joined the room
[17:56:53] <jonasw> yeah
[17:57:00] <jonasw> I’m already not happy with XEPs changing at all
[17:57:26] <Ge0rG> Except when they are made better?
[17:58:10] <jonasw> even draft xeps sometimes undergo massive changes, see Bookmarks.
[17:59:56] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[18:00:58] <Ge0rG> I'm not implementing Bookmarks. Because the RECOMMENDED way doesn't work, and the working way is Historical.
[18:01:22] <moparisthebest> same with omemo?
[18:01:37] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[18:02:11] *** jubalh has joined the room
[18:02:29] <jonasw> no, OMEMO has a XEP reflecting the current state now
[18:02:43] <Ge0rG> I'm not implementing OMEMO because the deployed protocol is not specified, the specified protocol is not deployed, because it adds major UX bumps and because I don't believe in E2EE.
[18:02:52] <Ge0rG> jonasw: oh, it does?
[18:03:10] <jonasw> it uses the siacs namespace at least
[18:03:28] <zinid> the problem with namespaces bump is that I need to maintain all the code for previous namespaces, blowing the codebase, this is annoying
[18:03:56] <jonasw> another issue I have with that is that old versions are barely discoverable
[18:04:14] <jonasw> you could see a XEP for the first time a day after the last namespace bump, implement it, and see that nobody implements that version in the wild yet
[18:04:21] <Ge0rG> zinid: we can't bump the namespace on MUC, fortunately.
[18:04:50] <zinid> Ge0rG: and we resorted to replace this monster with another monster?
[18:05:12] <Ge0rG> zinid: MUC is not a monster. It's ugly, but it's not too large.
[18:06:09] <zinid> I have 4000 LOC of mod_muc* modules, isn't this a monster?
[18:06:14] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:06:19] *** Alex shows as "online"
[18:06:33] *** Martin has left the room
[18:06:49] <zinid> if it's not a monster, then what it is? I can recall pubsub only
[18:07:01] <Zash> Huh
[18:07:26] <Ge0rG> zinid: you know, bad specification is not the only cause of bloated software.
[18:07:29] <Ge0rG> Sometimes the problem is in front of the terminal, actually.
[18:08:07] *** jubalh has left the room
[18:08:11] *** jubalh has joined the room
[18:08:15] <moparisthebest> ‎[02:06:51 PM] ‎Ge0rG‎: *snip* I don't believe in E2EE.
[18:08:17] <moparisthebest> what
[18:08:49] <moparisthebest> what possible reason could you not believe in E2EE, and in what way
[18:09:37] <Zash> It's not the golden saviour of humanity as some would have you believe
[18:09:52] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: E2EE is often advertised as the solution to dragnet surveillance, but it doesn't fix the biggest problem: three-letter agencies are interested in meta-data more than in actual content.
[18:09:59] <Zash> Also it invalidates a bunch of the assumptions XMPP is built on
[18:10:14] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: just the fact that Facebook-WhatsApp rolled out E2EE should make you think.
[18:10:27] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[18:10:39] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: if you really want to prevent meta-data collection, you must run your own server for family&friends. And then you don't need E2EE any more.
[18:11:19] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:11:22] <jonasw> (I find that argument rather convincing, by the way. And I belong to the group of people who’re still using OTR, because reasons)
[18:11:23] <moparisthebest> so I agree, it doesn't solve everything, nothing does, it also doesn't harm anything either though
[18:11:52] <jonasw> it does
[18:11:52] <moparisthebest> I run my own server but still use E2E, what if the mam database is compromised or otherwise exposed?
[18:12:03] <jonasw> take a look at the number of people complaining about issues with OMEMO and blaming it on XMPP
[18:12:06] <jonasw> like losing messages in groupchats
[18:12:21] <jonasw> they don’t think the issue might be the experimental E2EE implementation they’re using.
[18:12:35] <jonasw> (or, maybe worse, blaming it on the server)
[18:12:55] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: OMEMO failed to address the device migration use case, among others.
[18:13:28] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: my position is: XMPP is already f***ing complicated and has too many corner cases that break the UX. We shouldn't be adding yet another one.
[18:13:48] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[18:14:00] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[18:14:03] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[18:14:20] <Flow> uh Ge0rG droped the E2EE bomb
[18:14:43] <Flow> where is my popcorn? ☺
[18:15:12] <Flow> Ge0rG: you have a point here. But I'm not sure if E2EE couldn't be made user friendly
[18:15:23] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[18:15:25] <Ge0rG> Flow: what bomb? I'm making this points for years now.
[18:15:59] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[18:16:17] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:16:28] <Flow> Ge0rG: well I know, but obviously there are still people who act a little bit shocked when you say that
[18:17:10] <moparisthebest> your arguments all apply to OTR
[18:17:16] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:17:17] <moparisthebest> not at all to PGP
[18:17:22] <moparisthebest> and only a little bit to OMEMO
[18:17:24] <moparisthebest> so
[18:17:26] <Ge0rG> Flow: I'm sure it's possible to make E2EE more user-friendly than it is now. However, it won't be as polished as WhatsApp E2EE any time soon, and we (as the Jabber community) already lack the resource to make XMPP more user-friendly.
[18:18:16] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: my arguments apply to all E2EE on top of XMPP
[18:18:56] <moparisthebest> also Ge0rG your argument was if you want privacy have all your friends have an account on your server? kind of kills federation no?
[18:19:25] *** Valerian has joined the room
[18:19:42] <Flow> moparisthebest: surely the problem isn't E2EE *on* XMPP
[18:19:59] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:20:02] <Flow> moparisthebest: no, he (and I) want you to run your own XMPP service
[18:20:13] <Flow> and federate with your the XMPP server that is run by your friends
[18:20:30] <moparisthebest> so every user runs their own server?
[18:20:37] <Holger> moparisthebest: "not at all to PGP" -- no matter what E2EE you're using, you either don't verify keys or break communication by insisting on verified keys.
[18:20:43] <Flow> We need to go away from big centralized XMPP services like jabber.ccc.de or jabber.at
[18:21:02] <Holger> moparisthebest: No matter what E2EE you're using, you can't do server-side search on your archive.
[18:21:15] <Holger> moparisthebest: No matter what E2EE you're using, you can't do server-side spam filtering.
[18:21:32] <Flow> And to achieve that, we need to enable non-tech savy users to run their XMPP server on a vServer or on their home router
[18:21:45] <Flow> under their own domain
[18:22:25] <jonasw> Holger, incorrect, WhatsApp does server-side spam filtering only with metadata.
[18:22:27] <Flow> Holger: Now that you said it: I never received OpenPGP encrypted spam. wonder when that is going to start
[18:22:31] *** emxp has joined the room
[18:22:35] <moparisthebest> Holger, as Ge0rG said you have metadata, most filtering is on that anyhow?
[18:22:51] <jonasw> moparisthebest, it doesn’t work with XMPP, you need to have control over all servers to effectively filter spam on metadata
[18:23:02] <moparisthebest> in fact all the current 'must be on roster' filtering works with e2e
[18:23:03] <jonasw> (well, it’s not exactly like that, but federation makes it so much more difficult)
[18:23:11] <jonasw> must-be-on-roster is a very very bad spam filter
[18:23:39] <Flow> yep, bad idea
[18:23:51] *** lumi has joined the room
[18:24:03] <moparisthebest> I agree
[18:24:15] <Holger> jonasw, moparisthebest: I doubt that filtering purely on metadata can get you an accuracy anywhere near to filters that also take the body into account.
[18:24:20] *** emxp has joined the room
[18:24:46] *** Alex shows as "online"
[18:24:56] <moparisthebest> saying e2e is a bit hard so we shouldn't support it is dumb though, it's perfectly legitimate and if done right basically free
[18:24:59] <Holger> Flow: It'll start once OX is ubiquitous of course :-)
[18:25:11] <Flow> hehe
[18:25:17] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:25:25] <Flow> sadly new clients still implement xep27 ;(
[18:25:27] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:26:03] <Holger> moparisthebest: Yeah, dumb. In practice people just give up this XMPP shit due to the E2EE breakage we introduce.
[18:26:21] *** jubalh shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:26:28] <Holger> (I've seen *two* people saying just that *today*.)
[18:26:38] <moparisthebest> it's better than nothing (xep27)
[18:27:17] <Flow> moparisthebest: I don't think so. OpenPGP without a replay mitigation is worser than no verification at all
[18:27:21] <Flow> for example
[18:27:43] <moparisthebest> replay is a type of attack, sometimes it doesn't matter
[18:28:04] <Flow> ?
[18:29:01] <jonasw> Holger, whatsapp apperently does it quite well
[18:29:11] <jonasw> but I only heard that second- or third-hand
[18:29:48] <moparisthebest> Flow, sometimes you just need to protect content and don't care about replay
[18:30:03] <jonasw> moparisthebest, I don’t say we shouldn’t support e2ee at all. but Jabber as an IM system has much worse problems than not supporting E2EE currently.
[18:30:10] <jonasw> we need to solve those firts
[18:30:21] <moparisthebest> it's always going to have problems, everything does
[18:30:35] <jonasw> *especially* with security systems you can’t simply handwave problems away
[18:30:35] <Flow> moparisthebest: but especially in IM you want to know that the "I aggree" from the other side was a current response, and not from days ago
[18:30:40] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[18:30:43] <jonasw> people don’t expect replay attacks to work
[18:30:48] <Holger> jonasw: Yes much better than we do, mostly because they hide verification very well and don't have MAM/multi-device support. (And of course because they avoid implementation issues by controlling the clients.)
[18:30:52] <jonasw> and you can’t expect people to understand that
[18:31:14] <jonasw> Holger, they don’t have multi-device support?
[18:31:16] <jonasw> I thought they did.
[18:31:21] <jonasw> but how does that relate to spam filtering?
[18:31:35] <Holger> jonasw: No, they just have a web client that talks to your phone.
[18:31:57] <jonasw> eww
[18:32:55] *** stefandxm has left the room
[18:33:55] *** zinid has left the room
[18:35:29] *** winfried shows as "online"
[18:35:48] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:35:52] *** Alex shows as "online"
[18:37:14] <moparisthebest> Flow, yes the "I agree" replay is potentially a problem, the "here is your report for 2017-01-01 08:32 bla bla bla" is not
[18:37:48] <moparisthebest> but uh, "replay" is also a huge problem without e2e, so
[18:39:28] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:40:52] *** zinid shows as "online"
[18:41:52] *** winfried shows as "online"
[18:42:24] *** winfried shows as "online"
[18:43:04] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:43:07] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:44:35] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:44:43] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:45:18] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[18:46:54] *** zinid has left the room
[18:48:47] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:48:49] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:48:56] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:49:28] *** zinid shows as "online"
[18:49:28] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:50:41] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[18:55:28] *** zinid has left the room
[18:56:32] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[18:59:28] *** zinid shows as "online"
[19:05:21] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[19:05:22] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[19:10:43] <Ge0rG> Holger: and because they have millions of dev budget.
[19:11:20] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:12:10] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[19:16:05] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[19:17:29] <Flow> moparisthebest: "the "here is your report for 2017-01-01 08:32 bla bla bla" is not"?
[19:18:00] <moparisthebest> Flow, if I get a dated report from last month I'll be pretty sure it's a replay I guess
[19:18:41] <Holger> Ge0rG: RIght.
[19:18:53] <moparisthebest> what is the argument here? xep27 is bad because it's vulnerable to replay so use no encryption? (which is also vulnerable to replay)
[19:19:03] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[19:19:39] <Holger> That's not my argument, no. I use 0027 with the two-and-a-half geeks that manage to cope with key deployment in my roster myself.
[19:19:50] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:19:53] *** Alex shows as "online"
[19:19:57] <moparisthebest> anecdote of course but I switched to xmpp specifically so I could use PGP, then omemo came along and I use it sometimes, PGP still has a place
[19:20:54] <moparisthebest> now I'd much rather use OX than 27, but 27 is better than nothing
[19:20:59] <Flow> moparisthebest: The point is that xep27 is badly designed, allowing for replay attacks because the recipient (and a timestamp) is not part of the secured data
[19:21:09] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest [21:22]:
> Flow, if I get a dated report from last month I'll be pretty sure it's a replay I guess
And if the report author gets a "the report is okay, publish it", you can't know for sure
[19:21:23] <Holger> moparisthebest: Yes, "no forward secrecy" and "one key per contact rather than per device" are clearly features I appreciate compared to OTR/OMEMO.
[19:21:43] <moparisthebest> right I completely agree OX is better Flow , but 27 is better than nothing
[19:21:45] <Flow> OpenPGP certainly has it's place
[19:22:16] <Flow> moparisthebest; And that is where I disagree with you ☺
[19:22:22] <moparisthebest> I find it most handy for where I used to send cronjob output as pgp encrypted email from my servers
[19:22:39] <moparisthebest> a sendxmpp that does OMEMO seems, hard
[19:22:47] <Flow> true
[19:23:27] <moparisthebest> Flow, how could 27 possibly be worse than no encryption exactly
[19:23:40] <moparisthebest> it doesn't prevent replay or spoofing, neither does no encryption
[19:23:40] <Holger> Wrong sense of security.
[19:23:45] <Flow> moparisthebest: what holger said
[19:23:46] <moparisthebest> it does protect content
[19:23:53] <moparisthebest> that's all it does, I know that, I'm fine with that
[19:24:01] <Flow> it may be sufficently secure for the use case you described
[19:24:05] <Flow> but not for the gernal IM use case
[19:24:52] <moparisthebest> 100% agree OX should be pushed forward and I will drop 27 first :P but until then
[19:24:56] <Flow> OX would be able to prevent spoofing, xep27 is not
[19:25:26] <Flow> It's such a pitty that there is no high level OpenPGP library for java
[19:25:51] <moparisthebest> you could do android first :)
[19:26:03] <moparisthebest> in fact there was a WIP OX pull request for conversations
[19:26:04] <Flow> (Java/Android that is)
[19:26:17] <moparisthebest> android has an excellent openpgp implementation/app
[19:26:46] <Flow> I know, OX was born because I meet the OpenKeychain dev's at the GSOC mentor's sumimt 2015
[19:26:50] <Flow> *met
[19:26:56] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:27:37] <Flow> I've been begging them to factor out the OpenPGP part of OpenKeychain into a library for Java and Android
[19:28:00] <moparisthebest> on android at least it's better as-is isn't it?
[19:28:32] <moparisthebest> as a PGP app that's usable by other apps
[19:28:34] <Flow> I'm sorry, I don't know how to parse that
[19:28:45] <Flow> Ahh yes, that was our idea for the conversations OX implemenation
[19:28:56] <moparisthebest> I don't want to import my key into conversations, and k9mail, and oandbackup
[19:29:11] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[19:29:11] <moparisthebest> I instead import it into OpenKeychain, and it does all the lifting, and the other apps just talk to it
[19:29:15] <Flow> OK (OpenKeychain) was missing a few additional exposed APIs for OX in conversations
[19:29:19] <Flow> but the effort stalled
[19:29:23] <Holger> moparisthebest: I don't want to import any keys anywhere.
[19:29:28] <zinid> > incorrect, WhatsApp does server-side spam filtering only with metadata.
No surprise, for centralized servers it's much easier to fight against spam when you control *every* user
[19:30:22] <Holger> moparisthebest: The key should silently be created by the app I'm using and auto-deployed to any other devices. Anything else will end up being completely unusable.
[19:30:22] <moparisthebest> oh well that's a different thing, yea I'm sure they'd add additional apis
[19:30:32] <moparisthebest> Holger, omemo?
[19:30:39] <Holger> moparisthebest: OX, maybe.
[19:31:14] <Holger> moparisthebest: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0373.html#synchro-pep
[19:31:17] <moparisthebest> hmm I'm not sure 1 key being automagically distributed is better than one key per device
[19:31:38] <moparisthebest> yea I remember reading it, I'm not convinced I want my encrypted key on my server
[19:31:54] <Holger> moparisthebest: IMO it makes the difference between "completely unusable" and "maybe somewhat usable" by non-geeks.
[19:32:25] <Holger> moparisthebest: Do you have a single non-geek in your roster you're talking PGP to?
[19:32:25] <moparisthebest> I think you are right actually
[19:32:33] <moparisthebest> in that the normal case it should do that
[19:32:44] <moparisthebest> but should also allow me to use my already-set-up-not-on-server key
[19:33:08] <moparisthebest> Holger, uh yes, but you didn't ask if I had to set up their pgp key for them or not :)
[19:33:09] <Holger> Yah I'm not discussing Advanced -> Expert -> Special options.
[19:33:46] <moparisthebest> do I have anyone in my roster I talk to with PGP that I didn't fully set up their key manually for them for? no :'(
[19:34:19] <Holger> I had like five and am down to three I think.
[19:34:31] <Holger> Of my ~150 contacts.
[19:34:37] <Holger> If which 100+ are geeks :-)
[19:34:42] <Holger> s/If/Of
[19:35:39] <moparisthebest> what client(s) do you use?
[19:35:53] <Holger> MCabber and Conversations.
[19:36:57] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:37:12] <moparisthebest> ah ok, I started with gajim and it didn't actually do carbons+pgp right, I got the impression no one else had tried
[19:38:01] <Holger> I heard of various issues with Gajim's PGP support but never tried myself.
[19:38:08] <Holger> Works just fine with my two clients.
[19:38:46] <moparisthebest> I put in a patch to fix that and it worked great for years until new gpg broke the python gpg lib, and I haven't looked at it
[19:40:09] <Holger> Ah right gpg2 is a PITA for MCabber as well. The fix is sticking to gpg1.
[19:41:07] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:41:12] <Holger> (Though McKael is somehow using gpg2 I think ...)
[19:41:12] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:41:26] *** McKael shows as "online"
[19:42:43] *** jere has joined the room
[19:42:46] <moparisthebest> iirc it worked fine with gpg 2 but 2.1 broke it
[19:43:11] <moparisthebest> I think the python lib is hardcoded to treat unknown errors fatally instead of a generic error and that breaks everything
[19:43:18] <moparisthebest> I need to look into it one day
[19:44:05] <zinid> I'm not a security expert, but what is a problem to keep private key securely on a server?
[19:44:24] <McKael> Holger: Yes I'm using GPG2 but it's painful, indeed.
[19:45:07] <moparisthebest> McKael, have any patches laying about or a terrible wrapper script or what? :)
[19:45:21] <zinid> can't I just encrypt it using my password which is supposedly stored hashed as well?
[19:45:21] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:45:27] *** Alex shows as "online"
[19:46:34] <McKael> moparisthebest: No, lately I've been using the default pinentry and it messes things up
[19:47:09] <McKael> Not sure how I got rid of that before, I forgot :/
[19:47:10] *** jubalh has left the room
[19:47:41] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:48:18] <Wiktor> zinid: defense in depth, one can tell that your server is already protected by password so no need for PGP private key passwords, but you use it anyway to have layers of protection
[19:48:19] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:49:15] <zinid> I don't understand, according to e2e proponents, they don't trust server admins
[19:49:35] <Holger> zinid: Yes that's how I'd do it. Not sure how to survive forgotton/restored passwords though. Maybe each client needs an unencrypted copy of the key to re-encrypt it on password change or something ...
[19:50:21] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[19:51:18] <Wiktor> zinid: you don't store the private key even encrypted because loss of password would compromise the key
[19:51:21] *** zinid has left the room
[19:51:35] <Wiktor> I'm not using PGP with xmpp though
[19:51:36] *** mimi89999 has joined the room
[19:51:53] <Wiktor> But usually you don't even store the private key in software but use hardware token
[19:51:53] *** daniel has joined the room
[19:51:58] <Wiktor> To further protect the key
[19:52:01] <zinid> but you can also lose private key
[19:52:04] <Holger> "usually" :-)
[19:52:18] <zinid> Holger: lol :)
[19:52:38] <matlag> Holger, I would separate the account's PW from the key's encryption PW, then the server also stores the latest modif of the encryption PW, when the user connects, the client checks if its stored PW is the latest, and if not prompt the user for the new one
[19:52:40] <zinid> and typically you lose private key with losing phone for example
[19:52:54] <zinid> still not clear
[19:53:15] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:53:53] *** zinid shows as "online"
[19:53:56] <zinid> I cannot believe there is no solutions for this problem, key servers? kerberos? just to mention, I know jack shit about these :)
[19:54:00] <Holger> matlag: The server has a clear-text copy of the key encryption PW??
[19:54:09] <matlag> no, only the date of the latest change
[19:54:12] <Holger> Ah.
[19:54:12] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:54:22] <Holger> So simply a separate passphrase?
[19:54:38] <matlag> yep
[19:54:57] <Holger> "Hello User, please type your password! ... thanks, now please type your other password!"
[19:55:00] <zinid> which will be the same for the majority of users :)
[19:55:00] <Holger> They'll love you.
[19:55:02] <Wiktor> zinid: truly paranoid store their private key copies only on offline, airgapped machines, then load it on OpenPGP smart card
[19:55:26] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:55:28] <Wiktor> Note I'm not advocating for that
[19:55:29] <zinid> Wiktor: are we building a network for trully paranoid?
[19:55:36] <zinid> Wiktor: can we just have non-paranoid mode/
[19:55:37] <zinid> ?
[19:55:38] <matlag> well, currently the risk is "Hello User, please type your password! ... now please type your entire private key"
[19:56:09] <Wiktor> I'm not building anything just saying there are various threat models in existence
[19:56:20] <matlag> zinid, you need to fit all the needs! so paranoid should be an option
[19:56:46] <zinid> matlag: sure, don't store private keys on server, keep them on hardwared device
[19:57:02] <zinid> I mean it's totally opaque for the server where you keep your keys
[19:58:04] <Holger> matlag: My point was about increasing the usablity of E2EE, not about increasing it's security. The latter is easier, the problem is just that you end up with zero users of your secure solution.
[19:58:15] <zinid> but still a problem with password restoration indeed
[19:59:22] <Holger> matlag: As a well-hidden *option* you can make it as secure and unusable as you like. The interesting part to achieve is to implement a default behavior that doesn't break day-to-day communication.
[20:00:08] <zinid> I agreed
[20:00:19] <matlag> I admit it's not so friendly, but on the other hand, you can store the key PW on the client and then you don't need to change it as long as you don't change the key PW
[20:00:23] <zinid> currently users are trying to use OMEMO, they fail and resort not to using OMEMO at all
[20:01:01] <zinid> so probably better to use less secure option?
[20:01:03] <matlag> I mean: is that so much more cumbersome than changing your home's wifi password?
[20:01:35] <Holger> zinid: They resort to ditching the non-working XMPP crap.
[20:02:05] <Holger> matlag: The point is it's so much more cumbersome than just using WhatsApp/Signal/whatever.
[20:02:12] <zinid> matlag: did you really contact with a regular user? my wife's mother cannot configure wifi for example, but she loves whatsapp, so a potential user
[20:02:26] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:02:38] <matlag> Yeah, ok, point taken
[20:04:15] <moparisthebest> what if you make them have 16 character passwords and take the first 8 for the key password and send the second 8 to the server for login
[20:04:39] <moparisthebest> either way yea I want to decrypt my pgp key with a seperate password, normal users probably don't need it encrypted on the device at all
[20:04:59] <zinid> but all 16 characters will be lost?
[20:05:06] <Holger> moparisthebest: Won't help much if you're trying to protect against the case where the password is lost.
[20:05:08] <zinid> because they are stored in a single place, no?
[20:05:11] <matlag> moparisthebest, They end up typing the 16 characters and that's the same as having hte same PW for both
[20:05:13] *** Flow has left the room
[20:05:13] <Holger> (zinid was faster.)
[20:05:22] <Ge0rG> What would be great is an xmpp server that encrypts everything for a user with a key pair where the private key is only unlocked while the user is logged in.
[20:07:14] <Wiktor> If your target user is a mother in law you shouldn't be talking about encryption because she probably doesn't care if whatsapp is encrypted but of easy contact discovery and on boarding process
[20:07:39] <zinid> Wiktor: but usually I'm not talking about e2e :)
[20:07:48] <zinid> I think it's still just a toy
[20:07:55] <moparisthebest> Ge0rG, meh that's still just fully trusting the server
[20:08:16] <moparisthebest> I mean you already have full disk encryption and such on the server
[20:08:22] <Holger> Wiktor: Agreed! I'd just disable encryption by default. But everyone is telling me it MUST be enabled by default, or even always.
[20:08:27] <Zash> Ge0rG: Wanna the crypto design and audit?
[20:08:28] <Wiktor> zinid: agreed, but for me it's a toy for power users, like PGP itself
[20:08:31] <matlag> So let's assume most users don't care about encryption but you want a default encryption for them: most can use the same PW for account and private key, others can have them separated?
[20:09:08] <moparisthebest> or just don't have a password on the local pgp key
[20:09:16] <Holger> Wiktor: So I'm getting to think about how to enable E2EE in order to make the geek marketing department happy without breaking stuff for the mother in law :-)
[20:09:17] <zinid> Wiktor: then nothing should be changed, everything is great
[20:09:19] <moparisthebest> it's storing full conversations in plain text anyway, most likely
[20:09:30] <Wiktor> Holger: on my client it's disabled by defiant and I use it with one contact for 239 unencrypted
[20:09:37] <Wiktor> For me that's a good ratio
[20:09:54] <Holger> Wiktor: The Conversations tracker is full of people complaining how OMEMO is optional and non-default.
[20:10:18] <Wiktor> zinid: w.r.t. To omemo just add support for key migration / rotation and easier adding of new devices
[20:10:19] <Zash> I did a prototype of a thing where some data is encrypted using a key derived from a SCRAM thing that you only have during login
[20:10:20] <Ge0rG> Zash: maybe one day I'll find a corporate customer that will pay for it
[20:10:26] <moparisthebest> because default is how it stays 99% of the time
[20:10:30] <Ge0rG> Zash: I remember that, yeah
[20:10:52] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:10:52] <moparisthebest> and if we've learned anything over the past 5 years or whatever, encryption should always be default
[20:11:00] <moparisthebest> at least, most people have learned that
[20:11:02] <Holger> Wiktor: ^ see?
[20:11:19] <zinid> :D
[20:11:21] <Wiktor> Hshshw
[20:11:24] <Holger> Wiktor: So how to deal with all the moparisthebests in the community? :-)
[20:11:26] <Wiktor> Hahaha*
[20:11:29] <Zash> moparisthebest: I'm not convinced that XMPP is the right thing if you wanna have a protocol where everything is encrypted.
[20:11:31] <moparisthebest> :)
[20:11:39] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:11:40] <Wiktor> Great point Holger
[20:12:04] <moparisthebest> Zash, do you know of better ones that don't eat battery due to p2p ?
[20:12:07] <Zash> XMPP is a giant compromise. Compromise between p2p and centralized.
[20:12:12] <SamWhited> > encryption should always be default

Define "encryption"? Are you still talking about e2e encryption like most of this conversation (I've just been passively following)
[20:12:24] <moparisthebest> all of it, imho
[20:12:45] <moparisthebest> I mean, TLS/transport encryption should be mandatory with no cut-off
[20:13:03] <Wiktor> moparisthebest: well it is on xmpp since 2014?
[20:13:09] <moparisthebest> e2e should be default, with the ideal of no cut-off
[20:13:23] <Holger> moparisthebest: Apart from that, I should be rich!
[20:13:43] <moparisthebest> that's the ideal isn't it? :P
[20:14:03] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[20:14:40] *** daniel has left the room
[20:15:16] <Wiktor> moparisthebest: what is your threat model? Why do you want e2e6by default? Do you understand that without face to face fingerprint comparisons e2e does not provide any significant advantages?
[20:15:26] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:15:34] <moparisthebest> I tend to agree current pgp/omemo isn't quite ready for default enforced prime-time, that's just where we should be aiming
[20:16:00] <moparisthebest> Wiktor, it still defeats passive surveillance which is ubiquitous
[20:16:16] <Wiktor> Tls defeats passive surveillance
[20:16:16] <moparisthebest> also all the server hack leaks everywhere
[20:16:24] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[20:16:32] <SamWhited> Why? What is the actual thing you are trying to accomplish by making e2e encryption the default?
[20:16:34] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:16:50] <Zash> moparisthebest: By whom? e2e protects against some cases of evil server, but in XMPP, if your server is evil, you are screwed
[20:17:29] <moparisthebest> you don't have to trust your server, so why trust your server
[20:17:40] <moparisthebest> and, your chat partner's server if not the same
[20:17:41] <zinid> Zash: the point I'm told is that the remote server can be evil and you can do nothing with it
[20:17:54] <Wiktor> Zash: exactly. moparisthebest If your server lies about your keys and you don't compare them live then the security model has been broken
[20:18:11] *** Valerian has left the room
[20:18:16] <moparisthebest> also define 'screwed', it can block your messages, it can't do anything else with e2e
[20:18:28] <moparisthebest> Wiktor, again an active attack that you can detect before, during, or after
[20:18:30] <Zash> zinid: Sure, you have to trust that your chat partner picked a trustworthy server too.
[20:18:43] <moparisthebest> vs you having no idea who has your messages when
[20:19:21] *** winfried shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:19:48] <Wiktor> Well usually only your server and your friend's has messages, in xmpp they are directly connected.
[20:19:58] <zinid> Zash: I agree you cannot build security without trust, the question is how paranoid we should be
[20:20:08] <SamWhited> It sounds like "encryption" is being equated with "security" here, and that's always dangerous. If you ignore the user aspect (you're making all sorts of trade offs by forcing everything to be e2e encrypted) they'll just go somewhere else or develop bad habits that make things worse. If you can't clearly articulate a reason other than "why not?" you may want to think about it more. That's never an okay way to approach thinking about security.
[20:20:29] <moparisthebest> Wiktor, do I know if they are connected securely
[20:20:43] *** Valerian has joined the room
[20:20:50] <moparisthebest> do I know if the other users server mandates encryption on c2s
[20:21:03] <moparisthebest> tls in this case
[20:21:04] <Wiktor> Well your server should mandate your security standards
[20:21:27] <moparisthebest> but if you sign up for newhotserver.im
[20:21:36] <moparisthebest> you think key verification is the problem
[20:21:38] *** waqas has left the room
[20:21:43] <moparisthebest> but the solution is to personally trust your server operator?
[20:21:46] <moparisthebest> seems suspicious
[20:21:50] <Wiktor> Then do you know if your friends computer is not compromised by malware?
[20:22:10] <moparisthebest> it's about minimizing risk, that's a risk either way
[20:22:17] <moparisthebest> you have to trust your friend's endpoint
[20:22:24] <moparisthebest> you don't have to trust everything in between
[20:22:24] <Wiktor> Key verification is always the biggest problems :)
[20:22:39] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:23:06] <Wiktor> Yes it's about minimizing risk but if the advantage is small enough then it's not ok to mandate e2e everywhere
[20:23:29] <SamWhited> Or if it actually makes things worse…
[20:23:43] <moparisthebest> what if it doesn't have any disadvantages
[20:23:51] <Wiktor> Yes, exactly. There are always trade offs
[20:24:03] <zinid> moparisthebest: but it does
[20:24:15] <moparisthebest> you mean some current systems do
[20:24:25] <zinid> yes
[20:24:58] *** Alex shows as "online"
[20:25:19] <Wiktor> > what if it doesn't have any disadvantages
I've never seen a solution to anything without disadvantages. There are always constraints.
[20:25:24] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[20:25:25] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[20:25:33] *** Valerian has left the room
[20:25:35] <zinid> and security is always inversly proportional to usability
[20:26:08] <zinid> whatever encryption you suggest, you lower the usability part
[20:26:38] <zinid> so users should clearyl understand why they suffer
[20:26:38] <moparisthebest> that's not true though
[20:26:45] <moparisthebest> do you have your laptop hard drive encrypted?
[20:27:20] <zinid> moparisthebest: that's not even my words, Schneier said that :)
[20:27:35] <zinid> moparisthebest: no, I don't
[20:27:39] <moparisthebest> even great guys can be wrong sometimes haha
[20:27:59] <moparisthebest> ok well that's just inexcusable why? :P
[20:28:09] <moparisthebest> I guess if it never leaves your house it's probably fine
[20:28:14] <zinid> moparisthebest: I don't know how to do this
[20:28:16] <Wiktor> HD encrypted can be a usability nightmare if you have your keys only in TPM and TPM died :)
[20:28:18] *** McKael shows as "online"
[20:28:21] <zinid> is it ok answer? :)
[20:28:58] <matlag> moparisthebest, In this case, for example, the only way to have a solution that guarantees no user intervention is to have the private key stored on server and encrypted with the user's account PW: no degradation of usability, BUT: not nearly as safe as the blows and whistle you hear for great E2E
[20:28:59] <moparisthebest> the point I was going to make was it's the same either way, you type a password to get into it regardless, and nowadays it doesn't even run slower
[20:29:06] <SamWhited> I have two laptops, one has the disk encrypted and one doesn't. The one with the disk encrypted I have to type a password in every time I boot and if the sector that contains the key gets corrupt the whole harddrive is lost instead of just that one sector.
[20:29:08] <SamWhited> That is a trade off.
[20:29:22] <SamWhited> I only chose to make it on one laptop because I have a very specific threat I am trying to protect against with that specific machine.
[20:29:27] <matlag> if you increase security, then you need the user intervention, and as you increase it, more and more user intervention
[20:29:30] <moparisthebest> a few sectors include the key normally SamWhited
[20:30:22] <SamWhited> Doesn't matter, it is more likely that I lose all the data (I do actually have it in two key slots, I also keep an offsite backup, another tradeoff I made)
[20:30:26] *** goffi has left the room
[20:30:47] <SamWhited> The point is there are tradeoffs to the thing you used as an example too. If you don't even know what threat you're trying to protect against, there's little point in making some of these trade offs.
[20:30:54] <moparisthebest> really that's a bad example anyway, the users I see generally expect chat to be ephemeral anyway
[20:31:08] <moparisthebest> so if they forget their password and don't have logs from yesterday, oh well
[20:31:20] <moparisthebest> I guess it's a trade off but also maybe what they expect?
[20:31:21] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[20:31:24] <zinid> a good example is probably how PKIX is used currently in browsers
[20:31:36] <moparisthebest> (I'm basing this on all the users that want to be able to delete shared pictures from http upload)
[20:31:37] <Ge0rG> I expect IM history to be eternal. Maybe I'm different.
[20:31:39] <zinid> very little inconvenience
[20:32:10] <moparisthebest> Ge0rG, then you already have backups and such and will get that with e2e also
[20:32:19] *** efrit has joined the room
[20:32:55] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: e2ee is more complicated than not having it.
[20:33:19] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: the people who are the loudest to demand e2ee have the least understanding of it, usually.
[20:33:19] *** stefandxm has left the room
[20:34:16] <Ge0rG> And I'm on the road for almost eight hours now. German public transportation has been severely impacted by some storm.
[20:34:22] <moparisthebest> I guess everything is more complicated than not having it
[20:34:36] <Ge0rG> moparisthebest: Easy XMPP is an exception
[20:35:18] <zinid> xmpp2 !!!111
[20:35:18] <moparisthebest> still more code
[20:35:36] *** lovetox has joined the room
[20:36:20] <zinid> Ge0rG: btw, your subject about message routing didn't route further in the standards@ :)
[20:36:34] <zinid> Ge0rG: my guess is that nobody knows how to fix stuff, lol
[20:37:00] *** waqas has joined the room
[20:37:14] <moparisthebest> can we make direct tls the only way to connect in xmpp2 ? :P
[20:37:16] <zinid> adding more xeps => sucks
breaking compatiblity => sucks
[20:38:10] <zinid> moparisthebest: is it the major problem? :)
[20:38:24] <moparisthebest> no just another nice-to-have
[20:38:59] <moparisthebest> also I don't see any trade-offs with this one haha
[20:39:22] *** winfried shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:40:54] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[20:40:55] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[20:42:42] <zinid> the trade-off is more implementation
[20:42:59] <zinid> poor library support
[20:43:05] <moparisthebest> for direct TLS ?
[20:43:08] <moparisthebest> surely it's the opposite
[20:43:10] <zinid> yes
[20:43:31] <moparisthebest> every TLS lib ever vs xmpp-specific-libs ?
[20:43:32] <zinid> you need to support SNI in server, that's some work if you use openssl ;)
[20:43:32] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[20:44:08] <zinid> ejabberd doesn't support it for this reason, the API is ugly as hell
[20:44:14] <moparisthebest> you are already doing far more work for everything else in xmpp2 surely
[20:44:19] <zinid> I need to be a man and implement it
[20:44:28] <moparisthebest> anyway it gives you tons of other advantages
[20:44:40] <moparisthebest> 0-rtt, false start, everything fancy https gets
[20:45:13] <zinid> isn't this the trade-off we're talking about? :)
[20:45:49] <zinid> you get all these goods, but need to put more code, at least server side
[20:46:20] <zinid> and ALPN is only supported in openssl 1.0.2, some systems still don't have it yet
[20:46:23] <moparisthebest> you are talking about xmpp2 though, it's all more code
[20:46:55] <MattJ> I think I'd rather rewrite everything XMPP from scratch than spend time near OpenSSL's API again
[20:46:57] <zinid> moparisthebest: that was a joke actually :) obviously transition to xmpp2 will bring lots of pain
[20:47:36] <moparisthebest> also zinid 1.0.1 is already dead so I don't think anyone should care, hopefully :(
[20:47:46] <moparisthebest> yea openssl is the perfect example of a footgun api
[20:48:24] <zinid> moparisthebest: surprisingly, we get complains from time to time about cutting edge version requirement (1.0.1), lol :)
[20:48:56] <Holger> "zinid 1.0.1 is already dead"
[20:49:03] <zinid> ah
[20:49:05] *Holger goes updating zinid.
[20:49:17] *** zinid2.0 has joined the room
[20:49:28] *** zinid_2.0 has joined the room
[20:50:54] <moparisthebest> context, it's all about context :P
[20:51:19] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[20:52:37] *** Valerian has joined the room
[20:53:22] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:54:10] <zinid> but still I think direct tls is a great idea
[20:54:50] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[20:54:56] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:56:43] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[20:56:45] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[21:08:30] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[21:13:50] *** Guus has left the room
[21:14:26] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[21:15:10] *** Guus shows as "online"
[21:21:20] *** waqas has left the room
[21:21:44] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[21:26:38] *** jjrh has left the room
[21:26:40] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[21:42:52] *** jubalh has joined the room
[21:43:28] *** Alex has left the room
[21:45:09] *** jubalh has left the room
[21:49:51] *** winfried has joined the room
[21:49:51] *** winfried shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[21:50:08] *** winfried shows as "online"
[21:51:02] *** intosi has joined the room
[21:51:15] *** jubalh has joined the room
[21:52:04] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[21:52:46] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[21:53:50] *** SamWhited has left the room
[21:55:32] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[22:02:28] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[22:05:49] *** andrey.g has left the room
[22:06:05] *** waqas has joined the room
[22:08:55] *** Valerian has left the room
[22:11:18] *** jubalh has left the room
[22:11:18] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[22:11:25] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[22:12:37] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[22:14:27] *** jubalh has left the room
[22:15:27] *** uc shows as "online"
[22:17:59] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[22:22:34] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[22:33:10] *** jjrh has left the room
[22:34:17] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[22:34:36] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[22:35:02] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[22:42:37] *** Valerian has joined the room
[22:49:29] *** zinid has left the room
[22:49:38] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[22:49:51] *** jjrh has left the room
[22:50:05] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[22:52:57] *** andrey.g has left the room
[22:55:59] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[22:56:47] *** zinid has left the room
[22:56:51] *** zinid has joined the room
[22:56:55] *** zinid has left the room
[22:57:07] *** matlag has left the room
[23:00:09] *** zinid has joined the room
[23:01:10] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[23:07:51] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:07:53] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:11:25] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:11:28] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:12:04] *** Valerian has left the room
[23:14:40] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[23:17:15] *** Valerian has joined the room
[23:19:25] *** Zash shows as "online"
[23:19:51] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[23:21:46] *** Zash has left the room
[23:27:55] *** waqas has left the room
[23:28:56] *** ThurahT has left the room
[23:29:05] *** lovetox has left the room
[23:29:10] *** ThurahT has joined the room
[23:34:17] *** ThurahT has left the room
[23:39:54] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[23:42:45] *** waqas has joined the room
[23:44:05] *** ThurahT has joined the room
[23:50:44] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[23:53:23] *** pep. shows as "online"
[23:57:32] *** Guus has left the room