Friday, December 08, 2017
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
December
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

[00:06:52] *** arc has left the room
[00:06:54] *** arc has joined the room
[00:07:23] *** arc has left the room
[00:08:40] *** jjrh has left the room
[00:08:42] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[00:10:17] *** goffi has left the room
[00:12:18] *** arc has joined the room
[00:13:19] *** jere has joined the room
[00:30:09] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[00:55:08] *** jere has left the room
[00:55:15] *** jere has joined the room
[00:59:51] *** zinid has joined the room
[01:05:14] *** zinid has left the room
[01:11:08] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[01:35:30] *** arc has left the room
[01:36:44] *** tux has left the room
[01:36:45] *** tux has joined the room
[01:36:47] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[01:39:54] *** arc has joined the room
[01:41:06] *** Zash has left the room
[01:41:56] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[01:45:56] *** jere has left the room
[01:46:07] *** jere has joined the room
[01:58:30] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[01:58:33] *** Tobias has joined the room
[01:58:42] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[02:03:15] *** jjrh has left the room
[02:03:17] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[02:07:55] *** zinid has joined the room
[02:13:41] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[02:13:58] *** zinid has left the room
[02:19:20] *** stefandxm has left the room
[02:19:21] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[02:19:22] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[02:38:21] *** stefandxm has left the room
[02:38:21] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[02:38:22] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[02:38:35] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:38:35] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[02:38:48] *** @Alacer has left the room
[02:41:06] *** @Alacer has joined the room
[02:43:44] *** stefandxm has left the room
[02:43:47] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[02:43:48] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[02:44:37] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:44:37] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[02:45:17] *** jmpman has joined the room
[02:51:48] *** jmpman has left the room
[02:52:01] *** jmpman has joined the room
[03:00:33] *** zinid has joined the room
[03:00:50] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[03:00:51] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[03:01:12] *** stefandxm has left the room
[03:06:09] *** efrit has joined the room
[03:06:34] *** zinid has left the room
[03:09:11] *** stefandxm has left the room
[03:09:14] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[03:09:15] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[03:18:16] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[03:18:24] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:23:12] *** arc has left the room
[03:23:13] *** arc has joined the room
[03:31:42] *** ralphm has joined the room
[03:41:05] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[03:48:13] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[03:48:15] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:49:45] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:50:15] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:52:37] *** efrit has left the room
[03:55:02] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[03:55:07] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:59:02] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[03:59:03] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[03:59:06] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[04:03:02] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[04:03:06] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[04:11:45] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[04:11:45] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[04:11:49] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[04:21:15] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[04:21:16] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[04:36:58] *** @Alacer has left the room
[04:39:40] *** @Alacer has joined the room
[04:45:25] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[04:48:08] *** zinid has joined the room
[04:50:37] *** 0000 has left the room
[04:54:09] *** zinid has left the room
[04:57:27] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[04:59:02] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[04:59:03] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[05:00:03] *** zinid has joined the room
[05:06:06] *** zinid has left the room
[05:22:04] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[05:22:07] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:28:42] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[05:35:25] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:35:32] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:41:48] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:41:58] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:46:46] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:47:01] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:49:55] *** 0000 has joined the room
[05:51:51] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:52:07] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:55:49] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:55:51] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:56:58] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[05:57:01] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:00:59] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[06:06:57] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:07:03] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:07:51] *** uc has joined the room
[06:08:16] *** zinid has joined the room
[06:11:49] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:12:06] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:13:22] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:14:27] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:17:23] *** zinid shows as "online"
[06:29:18] *** @Alacer has left the room
[06:29:28] *** @Alacer has joined the room
[06:29:39] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:34:37] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:35:15] *** SamWhited has left the room
[06:35:37] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:38:23] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:41:20] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:46:08] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[06:47:18] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[06:48:29] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[06:49:11] *** marc has joined the room
[06:49:21] *** marc shows as "online"
[06:56:39] *** ralphm has left the room
[06:57:38] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:04:35] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:04:39] *** daniel shows as "online"
[07:04:41] *** daniel shows as "online"
[07:10:38] *** sonny has joined the room
[07:12:18] *** daniel has left the room
[07:13:46] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:15:23] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[07:17:08] *** daniel shows as "online"
[07:18:14] *** Guus has left the room
[07:20:26] <marc> Anyone an idea how we can make "xmpp:?message;body=BODY" XMPP URIs legal? It seems that some RFC doesn't allow empty JID in XMPP URI...
[07:21:15] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[07:22:09] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:22:15] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:22:38] *** daniel has left the room
[07:22:39] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:22:46] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:23:29] <jonasw> marc, what’d you use them for?
[07:23:59] <marc> jonasw, share a message
[07:24:59] <marc> Do you know these social share buttons on YouTube, Wordpress etc?
[07:25:15] <marc> That would be a use case
[07:25:24] <jonasw> ah, I see
[07:25:43] <marc> You click on it, the XMPP client pops up and let you decide the contact you want to share the message with
[07:25:46] <jonasw> if the RFC doesn’t allow for it, we need to extend the RFC I guess
[07:25:53] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:25:55] <jonasw> although I’m not sure if the URI RFC allows it :/
[07:25:58] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:26:08] <marc> It does
[07:26:14] <marc> At least I'm pretty sure
[07:26:35] <jonasw> implement it, the RFC can follow :)
[07:26:48] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[07:27:10] <marc> I'll double check if that possible in general URIs
[07:27:21] <marc> jonasw, I have an implementation for Conversations
[07:27:23] *** Guus shows as "online"
[07:27:36] <marc> It needs some restructuring but PoC works fine
[07:27:48] <jonasw> python urllib at least accepts xmpp:?
[07:27:59] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:28:04] <jonasw> which RFC specifies xmpp: again?
[07:28:55] <marc> jonasw, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 "The scheme and path components are required, though the path may be empty (no characters)."
[07:29:19] <marc> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2
[07:29:32] <marc> So URIs allow it
[07:29:38] <marc> We need to change XMPP URI RFC :)
[07:30:18] <marc> Of course, we could use an ugly hack like "xmpp:share?message;body=BODY"
[07:30:24] <marc> But I don't like it
[07:30:36] *** dwd shows as "online"
[07:31:09] <jonasw> I think it allows it
[07:31:12] <jonasw> but I may be mistaken
[07:31:45] *** zinid has left the room
[07:31:47] <jonasw> the rule we’re expanding in this case is: xmppiri = "xmpp" ":" ihierxmpp, ihierxmpp = ipathxmpp, ipathxmpp = ihost
[07:31:59] <jonasw> ihost is defined in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-2.2
[07:32:07] <jonasw> as: ihost = *( iunreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )
[07:32:19] <jonasw> the asterisk is defined in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2234
[07:32:34] <jonasw> as: The operator "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. The full
form is:

<a>*<b>element

where <a> and <b> are optional decimal values, indicating at least
<a> and at most <b> occurrences of element.

Default values are 0 and infinity so that *<element> allows any
number, including zero; 1*<element> requires at least one;
3*3<element> allows exactly 3 and 1*2<element> allows one or two.
[07:32:35] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:32:43] <jonasw> this means that *( foo ) is zero or more of foo
[07:32:46] <jonasw> in this case it means that ihost can be empty
[07:32:55] <jonasw> thus it is legal to have an empty JID *as per the grammar*
[07:33:01] <jonasw> I haven’t checked the text yet :)
[07:33:43] <jonasw> the same holds for the URI interpretation, but without the leading "i"
[07:36:15] <marc> Mhm okay
[07:36:25] <jonasw> it might be an oversight that the grammar allows it, but it’s useful in this case :)
[07:37:29] <marc> Maybe I need to read this document thoroughly, there is also something like "xmpp://guest@example.com/support@example.com?message"
[07:37:35] <jonasw> yeah
[07:40:02] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:40:09] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:40:28] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[07:41:08] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:41:13] *** ralphm has joined the room
[07:43:30] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[07:43:58] *** daniel shows as "online"
[07:45:03] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:46:41] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:46:44] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:52:54] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:53:30] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[07:56:23] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:56:31] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:02:07] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:03:15] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:09:00] *** stefandxm has left the room
[08:11:45] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:12:48] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Afwezig"
[08:13:03] *** intosi shows as "online"
[08:13:43] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:15:33] <Ge0rG> marc: I've been pondering about the invitation workflow some more, and I think it should go like this:
1. you request an invitation token from your server via ad-hoc
2. you send a url of xmpp:you@yourserver?roster;invitation=token out-of-band
3a. the invitee performs IBR with the invitation token
3b. the invitee already has an account and performs PARS with the invitation token
[08:18:43] *** sonny shows as "online"
[08:18:44] *** sonny shows as "online"
[08:20:51] *** daniel has left the room
[08:20:54] *** daniel shows as "online"
[08:29:18] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:29:19] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:29:56] *** daniel has left the room
[08:30:03] *** daniel shows as "online"
[08:30:10] <marc> Ge0rG, what is you@yourserver? The JID of the inviter?
[08:30:32] <Ge0rG> marc: correct
[08:30:46] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[08:30:53] *** @Alacer has left the room
[08:30:56] *** @Alacer has joined the room
[08:31:17] <marc> Ge0rG, the client still must provide the possiblity to create an account even if you already have one
[08:33:03] <Ge0rG> marc: in theory, yes. But I'm pretty sure the power users will figure it out anyway, and the regular users will only get confused
[08:34:00] <marc> Ge0rG, if you already have one you'll probably know what to do if the client provides you a dialog so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
[08:34:45] <jonasw> marc, FWIW, if you really want that feature, I’d hide it at the bottom of the screen
[08:34:58] <jonasw> like websites hide the "continue without" button when asking for your phone number :)
[08:36:14] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[08:36:22] <marc> jonasw, maybe I want to give a user the possibility to join _my_ server
[08:36:36] <marc> I think that feature is not unreasonable
[08:37:09] <jonasw> marc, I doubt that many users care a lot of about that.
[08:37:30] <Ge0rG> the default flow should be as easy as possible.
[08:37:43] <marc> yes, the default user has no account :P
[08:38:19] <marc> -> the default user will not be confronted with a dialog
[08:38:28] <marc> Ge0rG, I'm not sure about the ?roster action
[08:38:37] <Ge0rG> marc: I don't care about the action too much
[08:38:57] <Ge0rG> marc: but there will be a dialog, either account creation or add-contact
[08:40:02] <jonasw> s/roster/invite/?
[08:40:08] <marc> Ge0rG, Yes, if you already have an account there should be an "add-contact" dialog with an option to create an account
[08:40:13] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[08:40:15] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:40:53] <marc> (instead of just use an existing account)
[08:41:00] <daniel> > you send a url of xmpp:you@yourserver?roster;invitation=token out-of-band
shouldn't that be xmpp://you@yourserver or something
[08:41:13] <Ge0rG> marc: if the client supports multiple accounts. which is arguably a power-user feature that makes UX complicated
[08:41:27] <jonasw> daniel, are you asking because of the semantic difference between xmpp:// and xmpp:?
[08:41:34] <daniel> jonasw, yes
[08:41:41] <Ge0rG> daniel: no, :// would be an account reference, : is a contact reference
[08:41:46] <marc> daniel, no
[08:41:51] <marc> I had the same idea
[08:42:09] <marc> but the authority is to indicate the account to use
[08:42:10] *** daniel shows as "online"
[08:42:12] <daniel> oh i thought you was I
[08:42:22] <daniel> like you the proposed username for me
[08:42:57] <Ge0rG> daniel: you could do something like xmpp://proposed_invitee_jid@server/inviter@server
[08:43:21] <marc> Ge0rG, why does it lead to a complicated UI? Just a small button "Create account" in the bottom left/right corner
[08:43:31] <daniel> Ge0rG, yeah i thought that's what this thing was trying to do. never mind
[08:44:02] <Ge0rG> marc: the complicated UI arises when you have multiple accounts
[08:44:26] <Ge0rG> marc: now you need a notion of a default account, or ask the user on every interaction which account to use
[08:44:37] <daniel> marc, have you considered what communication method I would use to send you the url?
[08:44:49] <daniel> becasue gmail for example doesn't make xmpp uris clickable
[08:44:57] <daniel> neither does the sms app
[08:44:57] <marc> Ge0rG, you already have to ask the user what account to use
[08:45:05] <marc> daniel, we use an invitation url
[08:45:07] <Ge0rG> daniel: I would love to anchor that onto the easy-xmpp-invite mechanism
[08:45:08] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[08:45:11] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[08:45:22] <daniel> marc, like an https url?
[08:45:27] <marc> daniel, yes
[08:45:31] <Ge0rG> marc: that's exactly my point, it's a UX nightmare.
[08:45:37] <daniel> why are you discussing xmpp uri schemes then?
[08:45:49] <marc> daniel, that's an other topic ;)
[08:45:58] <Ge0rG> it's all interrelated.
[08:46:16] <daniel> only that xmpp uris are mostly worthless
[08:46:22] <daniel> when it comes to easy onboarding
[08:46:26] <marc> Yes
[08:46:28] <edhelas> was difficult to figure out those xmpp uris as well for me
[08:46:33] <Ge0rG> daniel: right, so I've made easy-xmpp-invitation.
[08:46:47] <Ge0rG> daniel: which allows to bridge xmpp: URIs over https.
[08:46:53] <daniel> edhelas, it's not that they are difficult. but you can't click them
[08:46:59] <jonasw> daniel, you can make any URL clickable on a website -> win
[08:47:13] <Ge0rG> jonasw: but it won't magically work.
[08:47:15] <marc> Ge0rG, I don't get what's the problem with multiple accounts. We already have clients that support multiple accounts.
[08:47:25] *** daniel shows as "online"
[08:47:31] <marc> And there is almost no additional work for the UI
[08:47:56] <Ge0rG> marc: I'm not saying that implementing multiple accounts is a problem, I'm saying that having multiple accounts on the same client is a UX nightmare
[08:48:23] <Ge0rG> marc: imagine a user accidentally clicking the "create account" button and ending up with two accounts - one for all their friends and one for you
[08:48:33] <Ge0rG> and users have very large fingers.
[08:48:57] <marc> Ge0rG, yes, that needs to be solved by the UI nicely :D
[08:49:01] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:49:36] *** stefandxm has left the room
[08:49:39] <marc> That's why the preferred option is to add the contact via PARS if an account is available
[08:50:24] *** Steve Kille has joined the room
[08:50:25] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:50:58] <marc> But creating a XEP just for user invitation to a server if the user doesn't already have an account limits the possibilities...
[08:51:05] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[08:51:15] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[08:53:06] <Ge0rG> marc: right, which is why the whole thing is also technically a bit more complex
[08:55:37] <marc> Ge0rG, my problem at the moment is that I'm not sure how to integrate both XEPs properly
[08:55:48] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:56:06] <marc> In a way that both do not depend on each other and can be implemented independetly
[08:56:09] *** daniel shows as "online"
[08:58:18] <Ge0rG> marc: you need to have four specifications:
- token generation (PARS uses a client-side approach, you go with ad-hoc. specify that)
- token transmission (basically a new xmpp: URI parameter)
- use of the token in account creation (IBR payload / data forms)
- use of the token in PARS (just reference PARS and say that the token must be usable as `preauth=` for PARS as well)
[08:59:48] <marc> Ge0rG, yes, but the tokens need to be the same if both is used
[08:59:49] <Ge0rG> the server needs to store the token in some kind of table anyway, where it will also contain the inviter's JID
[08:59:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:00:44] <Ge0rG> marc: I think that re-using this token for server-side PARS shouldn't hurt
[09:01:05] <Ge0rG> marc: so your specification means a server must implement PARS
[09:01:14] <Ge0rG> marc: or, alternatively, you need to add two tokens to the URL
[09:01:40] <Ge0rG> Actually, I would be okay with extending PARS accordingly.
[09:01:52] <Ge0rG> So that it covers both use cases.
[09:02:17] <marc> two token keys with the same token, like invite=TOKEN;preauth=TOKEN ?
[09:02:24] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:02:26] <marc> Such that the clients know that both is supported?
[09:02:28] <Ge0rG> marc: yes, like that.
[09:02:42] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:02:43] *** ralphm has left the room
[09:02:43] <Ge0rG> marc: or maybe invite_and_preauth=TOKEN ;)
[09:02:44] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[09:02:45] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:02:52] <Ge0rG> I like short URIs
[09:02:52] <marc> Ge0rG, No!
[09:02:53] <marc> :D
[09:03:51] <Ge0rG> marc: I would go for `invite=TOKEN` and "A server offering this feature MUST also accept the token as a <preauth token> for an inbound roster subscription to the inviter."
[09:04:47] *** daniel has left the room
[09:04:49] *** valo has left the room
[09:04:54] *** valo has joined the room
[09:05:04] *** daniel shows as "online"
[09:05:07] <marc> So implementing user-invitation requires implementation of PARS, right?
[09:05:34] *** daniel shows as "online"
[09:09:17] <Ge0rG> marc: not technically, but if you want to provide a good UX then yes
[09:11:15] <marc> Ge0rG, Yes, for nice UX I would prefer it this way
[09:11:26] <marc> Ge0rG, your statement sounds like a requirement
[09:11:51] *** uc has joined the room
[09:12:10] <Ge0rG> marc: you could go with two separate token parameters, then you have explicit separation between PARS and IBR. But then who is responsible for adding PARS to the URI? The server on ad-hoc? The inviter's client?
[09:13:00] <marc> Ge0rG, the server if it supports PARS?
[09:13:30] <Ge0rG> marc: in the ad-hoc response?
[09:13:43] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:13:50] <jonasw> Ge0rG, for breveity, the URI could also be ?invite=TOKEN;preauth=, with the empty preauth signifying that the token shall be re-used
[09:14:10] <Ge0rG> jonasw: then you are breaking existing PARS clients :P
[09:14:23] <jonasw> then turn it the other way round :)
[09:14:30] <jonasw> preauth=TOKEN;invite=
[09:15:17] <Ge0rG> jonasw: the more I think about it, the more I want to merge both functions into one XEP
[09:15:26] <jonasw> I agree
[09:15:39] <marc> Ge0rG, yes, in the ad-hoc response
[09:15:47] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[09:15:48] <marc> Ge0rG, are there any PARS clients out there? :D
[09:16:09] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[09:21:48] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[09:21:48] *** Ge0rG shows as "away"
[09:21:58] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:27:13] <Ge0rG> marc: there is yaxim
[09:27:47] *** zinid shows as "online"
[09:28:38] *** daniel has left the room
[09:28:41] *** daniel shows as "online"
[09:28:55] *** tux shows as "dnd" and his status message is "Work work …"
[09:30:40] <marc> Ge0rG, ah okay
[09:31:10] <jonasw> it’s on the to-do for jabbercat
[09:31:45] <marc> Ge0rG, well, I like your idea of combining both "features" but they should not be depend on each other IMO
[09:31:58] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[09:31:59] <Ge0rG> marc: that depends on your goal
[09:32:22] <Ge0rG> marc: if your goal is to make as little as possible, then you are right. If your goal is to provide a just-works™ onboarding experience, you need both.
[09:32:23] <marc> The combination of both would make on-boarding really nice
[09:32:53] *** daniel has left the room
[09:32:57] <marc> Ge0rG, of course, providing both should be recommended for public servers
[09:32:59] *** daniel shows as "online"
[09:34:56] <Ge0rG> marc: I'm all in for small self-contained XEPs. But if you separate these two, you have a bunch of additional client-side logic to add to compensate for the lack
[09:35:33] <Ge0rG> on the inviter's client: "oh, ad-hoc didn't give me a PARS token. I need to add one to the URI myself. Wait, the https:// URI is not a scheme I know, I can't do that!?"
[09:36:10] <Ge0rG> on the invitee's client, I need to cover all four combinations of features
[09:36:22] <Ge0rG> none / invite / pars / invite+pars
[09:36:33] <marc> Ge0rG, no, the server just adds the PARS token and returns it
[09:36:47] <Ge0rG> marc: but the server doesn't support PARS, only the client.
[09:37:10] <Ge0rG> I've designed PARS as a client-only protocol because server developers are lazy.
[09:37:19] <marc> Ge0rG, ah okay, didn't thought about that use case
[09:37:28] <Ge0rG> And server operators are even lazier.
[09:37:35] <jonasw> yeah, server developers aren’t that lazy
[09:38:22] <marc> Ge0rG, that's a good point... hm...
[09:38:23] <Ge0rG> marc: you implement your nice new server-side XEP. Then it takes weeks to months for it to get merged upstream. Then you need to wait for the next server software release. Then that release needs to be distro-packaged. Then you realize that most server operators never upgrade.
[09:38:48] <marc> Ge0rG, well, that's true for all server-side XEPs
[09:38:52] <Ge0rG> marc: true
[09:38:58] <marc> Ge0rG, should be implement everything on the client side?
[09:39:03] <Ge0rG> marc: now you know why PARS can be implemented 100% client-side
[09:39:18] <marc> s/be/we
[09:39:31] <jonasw> Ge0rG, I think it might be not /that/ bad
[09:39:36] <Ge0rG> marc: Daniel's compliance tester is a good thing to make server operators aware.
[09:39:47] <jonasw> we’ve seen quite quick adoption of things since conversations compliance checker
[09:39:51] <jonasw> right
[09:40:03] <Ge0rG> jonasw: especially private PEP.
[09:40:07] <jonasw> so if somebody builds a prosody module which does that, even if it only supports things in-memory, that’ll already be a major plus
[09:40:24] <jonasw> Ge0rG, yes, we have. A lot of work is going into that :)
[09:40:26] <Ge0rG> you can't force server developers to do work by showing a red square on some website
[09:40:37] <jonasw> but operators
[09:40:52] <marc> Ge0rG, to solve this issue we need an "official" public server list on the (xmpp.org?) website
[09:41:12] <jonasw> to solve that problem we need massive funding for developers.
[09:41:29] <marc> which shows only servers with a special set of XEPs
[09:41:35] *** zinid has left the room
[09:41:40] <Ge0rG> jonasw: how many servers are there in the compliance checker? ~120? yax.im has >1000 of s2s connections.
[09:42:09] <Ge0rG> marc: we can't even come up with that official set of XEPs.
[09:42:16] <daniel> Ge0rG: divide that number by 4
[09:42:23] <daniel> Because in and out and conferences
[09:43:02] <Ge0rG> marc: but yes, we need an official compliance checker, and maybe some kind of Badge Of Compliance that we can issue. Do you volunteer?
[09:43:30] <Ge0rG> daniel: `Total: 1112 outgoing, 1079 incoming connections` - not sure how many MUCs there are, but cant' imagine it's 50%
[09:43:33] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[09:43:41] <marc> Ge0rG, let me first finish my URI handling in Conversations and the user-invitation XEP ;)
[09:44:28] <jonasw> Ge0rG, depends on what you want to check, the aioxmpp end-to-end test suite might be a good start :)
[09:44:35] <marc> Ge0rG, but I think that's really important
[09:44:46] <Ge0rG> marc: what's important?
[09:45:10] <marc> Ge0rG, some official server list
[09:45:37] <Ge0rG> marc: xmpp.net had a semi-official one.
[09:45:46] <Ge0rG> but now it's down and needs work to bring up again.
[09:46:05] <jonasw> yeah, about that xmpp.net thing, Kev, I’m still hoping for your Dockerfile :)
[09:46:05] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[09:46:07] <marc> if you have created an account on a server which doesn't support, let's say HTTP upload, and file transfer in group chats doesn work this user will be annoyed and probably will never use / recommand XMPP
[09:46:16] <Kev> jonasw: Let me sort that out now.
[09:46:20] <jonasw> Kev, that’d be lovely
[09:46:38] <jonasw> I’m tempted to sink my weekend into getting xmpp.net up&running again
[09:46:59] <Ge0rG> !praise jonasw
[09:47:04] <jonasw> (and then people wonder why jabbercat isn’t making progress)
[09:47:08] <Guus> !praise jonasw
[09:47:14] <jonasw> hold yer horser
[09:47:18] <jonasw> save the praise for when I’m done
[09:47:22] <jonasw> I might easily get fed up by PHP
[09:47:23] <Kev> What is jabbercat, BTW?
[09:47:25] <Guus> (by the way, why isn't jabbercat making progress?)
[09:47:43] <jonasw> Kev, https://github.com/jabbercat/jabbercat, TL;DR: new Qt5 Desktop Client
[09:48:00] <Kev> Because we don't have a Qt5 Desktop client already? :)
[09:48:02] <Ge0rG> it's a very promising early alpha
[09:48:29] <marc> Ge0rG, to speed things up "we" should decide how we implement PARS and user-invitation
[09:48:33] <jonasw> Kev, frankly, when I started, I didn’t know / forgot about Swift & co.
[09:49:17] <Ge0rG> The Swift bug tracking situation is not optimal. I've submitted a bunch of things and I have no clue whether they got fixed or not.
[09:49:36] <Ge0rG> (except for the wontfix ones)
[09:50:39] <Ge0rG> marc: let me help you with that. We integrate account creation into PARS.
[09:51:24] <marc> Ge0rG, okay, and what's the protocol flow then?
[09:52:00] <Ge0rG> marc: ad-hoc -> xmpp: URI with optional https: URI -> out-of-band -> IBR/PARS request
[09:52:15] *** Guus has left the room
[09:52:16] *** Guus shows as "online"
[09:52:17] *** daniel has left the room
[09:52:23] *** daniel shows as "online"
[09:52:41] *** zinid shows as "online"
[09:52:54] <marc> Ge0rG, so the server generates / appends an additional PARS token if enabled?
[09:53:02] <Ge0rG> marc: if the server doesn't provide an https: URI, the client can either pass on xmpp: or use its own landing page (eg. https://yax.im/i/)
[09:53:12] <Ge0rG> marc: there is no "if enabled"
[09:53:19] <Ge0rG> and there is only one token, that can be used for both
[09:53:52] <Ge0rG> No, that won't work for closed-registration servers.
[09:54:06] <marc> Yeah, that's somehow my problem ;)
[09:54:20] <Kev> Ge0rG: Nothing is optimal :)
[09:54:24] <jonasw> Ge0rG, why?
[09:54:41] <Ge0rG> jonasw: the xmpp: URI needs an indicator whether registration is allowed.
[09:55:00] <jonasw> Ge0rG, ;allow-register?
[09:55:11] <marc> Because that means that somebody may propose just an other XEP for it...
[09:55:59] <Ge0rG> we could go with `xmpp://server/inviter@server;preauth=TOKEN` - `server` is explicitly telling us the domain where to register, the inviter JID is present and a token that can be used for either.
[09:56:25] <Ge0rG> But that will break most current clients that support xmpp:
[09:56:52] <Ge0rG> should we provide means for the server to specify a different domain from the inviter's?
[09:57:18] <jonasw> Ge0rG, will it though?
[09:57:40] <marc> Ge0rG, yes we should, I also had this idea :)
[09:57:43] <Ge0rG> jonasw: when you open an xmpp://foo.bar/user@foo.bar link, I'm pretty sure unexpected things will happen.
[09:58:03] <marc> yes, I think the XmppUri parser in Conversations is broken
[09:58:10] <jonasw> I’m pretty sure I’ll get "unknown protocol" because I don’t have an application which supports XMPP URIs at all
[09:58:16] <Ge0rG> the URI parser on android is broken as well
[09:58:19] <marc> At least it doesn't support the authority part properly AFAIK
[09:59:16] <Ge0rG> What about:
> If the server allows In-Band-Registration with the preauth token, it SHOULD add an `ibr` parameter. If the IBR domain is different from the inviter's service domain, the server should set the value of the `ibr` parameter to the domain name.
[10:00:16] <Ge0rG> So we would end up with: `xmpp:georg@legacy.yax.im?preauth=TOKEN;ibr=yax.im`
[10:00:24] <marc> Ge0rG, should we really avoid using XMPP URI properly just because some clients don't implement the parser properly?
[10:00:25] *** Guus has left the room
[10:00:26] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:00:41] <Ge0rG> marc: we are using the URI properly.
[10:00:53] <Ge0rG> marc: the primary goal of the URI is to add a contact, not to register with the server
[10:00:56] <jonasw> are we? wouldn’t xmpp://yax.im/georg@legacy.yax.im be more correct?
[10:01:02] <marc> What about xmpp://server/inviter@server;preauth=token` then?
[10:01:26] <Ge0rG> See above.
[10:02:14] <marc> I think jonasw is right
[10:03:14] *** Guus has left the room
[10:03:14] <Ge0rG> marc: so your goal is to force the invitee to register with your server?
[10:03:19] *** daniel shows as "online"
[10:03:54] <marc> Ge0rG, yes, at least it would be nice if we have an option for this use case
[10:04:06] <Kev> jonasw: How do you want this tarball?
[10:04:27] <marc> Ge0rG, because I'm pretty sure my server has nice XEPs enabled ;)
[10:04:28] <jonasw> Kev, deep fried
[10:04:32] <jonasw> Kev, mailto:jonas@wielicki.name
[10:04:44] <Ge0rG> marc: maybe we have different goals, then? I want to give out a link that allows the receiver to add me as a contact, and to create an account on the way if required
[10:05:19] <jonasw> I just wish this was all working before end of year :D
[10:05:24] *** zinid has left the room
[10:06:10] <Ge0rG> marc: if you want to "entice" the receiver to re-register on a different server, I don't agree.
[10:06:33] <Kev> jonasw: This is stuff for running up a symfony-based PHP thing, so you might want to trim some of the bits out - e.g. I have no idea if the frontend needs to install depedencies with composer. There might or might not need to be crontasks, trim that out if not, and you might or might not need to populate an environment file of some sort.
[10:06:41] <Ge0rG> marc: but in that case, the xmpp://server/inviter@server would be semantically correct.
[10:06:49] <jonasw> Kev, thank you very much
[10:06:58] <marc> Ge0rG, don't get me wrong, my intention is to make easy onboarding....
[10:07:01] <jonasw> gotta head out now for lunch, will take a look later :)
[10:07:22] <Ge0rG> marc: right. And onboarding without having to create an account is easier :P
[10:07:44] <jonasw> FWIW, marc, I think we shouldn’t encourage non-power users to have multiple accounts.
[10:08:01] <Ge0rG> what jonasw said.
[10:08:11] <jonasw> it should be there if they need and want it, but we shouldn’t make it the default path for the unthinking chicken installing debian :)
[10:08:18] <jonasw> (hitting enter / the big button on each step)
[10:08:49] <jonasw> (this is not to insult our users, just making a reference to the old joke that even a chicken can install debian by simply hitting on the Enter key repeatedly)
[10:09:01] *** stefandxm has left the room
[10:09:02] <jonasw> (and I think that it should be that easy to use XMPP)
[10:09:39] <marc> I agree, but to me it looks like we miss some useful feature in the XEP then
[10:10:14] <Ge0rG> marc: what would that useful feature be?
[10:10:35] <marc> Ge0rG, somebody is on a shitty server? :D
[10:10:55] <Ge0rG> marc: this is not a feature of the XEP
[10:11:15] <marc> well, it's user invitation
[10:11:49] <Ge0rG> marc: what about having a "server quality index" display in all clients, that can estimate how good the current server is, and how good the proposed one? :P
[10:13:13] <Ge0rG> marc: well. You can have the "Create new account on [ibr server]" button in the add-contact UI; and then you write into your invitation mail to click that button :P
[10:13:33] <marc> Ge0rG, if we don't have this feature there is no way to invite a user to a non-public server
[10:13:39] <Ge0rG> marc: my point is, what if you are on a shitty server and I'm not?
[10:13:59] <Ge0rG> marc: by non-public you mean non-federated?
[10:14:45] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[10:15:12] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[10:15:15] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[10:15:48] <marc> Ge0rG, no, just a server where only registered users can invite somebody
[10:17:19] *** arc has left the room
[10:17:27] *** lumi has joined the room
[10:18:01] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:18:32] *** arc has joined the room
[10:20:08] <marc> Ge0rG, I think there are some reasons to join a specific server even if an user has already an account, privacy/trust etc.
[10:20:29] <Ge0rG> marc: to invite a user to a non-federated server, the correct URI would be indeed `xmpp://server/inviter@server?ibr;preauth=TOKEN`
[10:20:42] <marc> This wouldn't be possible and IMO that's not good if we have the chance the include this
[10:21:04] <marc> Ge0rG, non-federated server is not the correct term
[10:21:26] <marc> Just because a server doesn't allow public registration it can still be federated...
[10:21:53] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:22:00] <Ge0rG> marc: if it allows federation, there is no need to force non-power-users to create a second account
[10:24:04] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[10:24:19] <marc> Ge0rG, even if the user is a "power-user", how to easily invite the user? via a web-interface / shell just because the XEP doesn't support this feature?
[10:24:44] <jonasw> I think you two are misunderstanding eaxh other
[10:24:49] <marc> :D
[10:25:04] <jonasw> Ge0rG wants to keep the account creation, but not as default
[10:25:11] <jonasw> and away
[10:25:18] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[10:26:21] <marc> Well, I'm fine with that :)
[10:26:30] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[10:26:36] <marc> It shouldn't be the default but it should be _possible_
[10:27:26] <marc> And, maybe that's the controversal part (?!), PARS should be optional
[10:27:44] <marc> Hm, maybe that's not too important
[10:27:46] <marc> I don't know
[10:28:23] *** ralphm has joined the room
[10:29:10] *** @Alacer shows as "online"
[10:29:11] *** @Alacer shows as "online"
[10:30:12] <Ge0rG> marc: why do you think PARS should be optional?
[10:30:37] <marc> Ge0rG, just thought about it
[10:30:41] <marc> Doesn't make sense
[10:30:46] <Ge0rG> marc: :)
[10:31:16] <marc> :)
[10:32:02] <marc> Okay, sounds good to me
[10:32:15] <Ge0rG> marc: anticipated UI:
+-----------------------+
| Invitation from Georg |
| |
| JID: [georg@yax.im ] |
| Name: [Georg ] |
| |
| [ ADD CONTACT ] |
| |
| [create yax.im accnt] |
+-----------------------+
[10:32:39] <Ge0rG> marc: the first button is prominent, the second button is toned down, like "skip registration" would be
[10:32:46] <marc> Ge0rG, +1
[10:32:57] <Flow> Ge0rG, so JID and Name are editable text fields?
[10:33:09] <Ge0rG> Flow: the JID is visible but not editable, the name is editable
[10:33:19] <Ge0rG> Flow: one might want to add a roster group selector as well.
[10:33:45] <Flow> Hmm, how about "Invitation from Georg (georg@yaxim)" then?
[10:33:57] <marc> Ge0rG, if we agree on the possiblity of predefines usernames (optional) we're almost done :D
[10:34:08] <Ge0rG> marc: please don't.
[10:34:34] <Flow> and why is there a [create yax.im account] button?
[10:34:35] <Ge0rG> Flow: what's wrong with the above? You can reuse your regular "add contact" dialog and just disable JID editing
[10:34:44] <marc> Ge0rG, but it allows me as admin to create an account for an user
[10:34:56] <marc> As I said, optional, server-side option, maybe for admins only etc.
[10:35:03] <marc> Not useful for public servers
[10:35:05] <Flow> Ge0rG, ok, if that is the idea. But I would proably go for a specialized UI
[10:35:21] <Ge0rG> marc: if you already created an account, you should use xmpp://user@server?preauth=TOKEN
[10:35:50] <Ge0rG> Flow: [create yax.im account] is for power-users who want to have an account on the same server as the inviter.
[10:35:55] <marc> Ge0rG, well the user still has to specify the password
[10:36:17] <marc> So ibr is still correct I think
[10:36:34] <Ge0rG> marc: I think this is a completely different use case.
[10:36:36] <Flow> Ge0rG, but UX usually means to hide operating elements for power useres
[10:36:45] <Ge0rG> Flow: tell that to marc
[10:36:59] <Flow> will do
[10:36:59] <marc> :D
[10:37:32] <Flow> good thing a protocol can't require how the UI looks like
[10:37:42] <Ge0rG> Flow: actually that's a bad thing, in most cases.
[10:37:58] <Flow> Ge0rG, require or suggest? ;)
[10:40:24] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[10:40:38] <Ge0rG> Except when protocol designers try to create a UI :P
[10:41:10] *** @Alacer shows as "online"
[10:41:10] *** @Alacer shows as "online"
[10:42:00] <Ge0rG> But yeah, I think that hiding the account creation behind an "Advanced..." button would be good.
[10:44:01] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[10:44:03] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:46:09] <marc> Ge0rG, sounds good
[10:47:05] <Ge0rG> marc: we really do need a way to "export" an account to a new device, or to one-click register, but I think this is a (slightly) different use case
[10:47:08] *** @Alacer has left the room
[10:47:45] <marc> Ge0rG, just let me know what's the big difference between "you have the option to create an account or add the contact to your roster" and "you have the option to create an account with full JID or add the contact to your roster"?
[10:47:58] <Ge0rG> marc: what you are looking for is, as an admin, to pre-create an account and give the user enough info to just configure a password.
[10:48:14] <marc> Ge0rG, yes
[10:48:19] *** daniel shows as "online"
[10:48:26] <Ge0rG> marc: what I'm looking for is to add a contact, and to create a user-defined account if required.
[10:48:42] <marc> Ge0rG, do you really think it's worth making an extra XEP for that?
[10:48:54] <Ge0rG> marc: if you pre-created an account, you want your invitee to use that.
[10:49:15] <Ge0rG> marc: I only want to give the invitee the option to create an account themselves
[10:50:30] *** lumi shows as "online"
[10:50:37] <marc> Ge0rG, what's the down-side of allowing this optional feature?
[10:51:15] *** pep. has left the room
[10:51:15] *** pep. shows as "online"
[10:52:31] <Ge0rG> marc: because this optional feature must be implemented by all clients
[10:54:14] <marc> okay, that's a reason
[10:54:21] <Ge0rG> marc: every time you add an option to a protocol, you double the number of possible situations
[10:54:29] <marc> But the code is very small
[10:54:46] *** daniel has left the room
[10:54:52] *** daniel shows as "online"
[10:54:56] <marc> Ge0rG, I know I've implemented it in conversations
[10:55:10] <marc> You just have to check if that's a full JID or just the server name
[10:55:14] <Ge0rG> marc: so with optional inviter name, optional invitee JID, optional https:// URL, and the option to already have an account we are at sixteen different cases already.
[10:55:26] <marc> In the latter case you have to fix the server name in the JID text entry
[10:56:54] <Ge0rG> marc: I see two different, but related use cases:
1. you want to onboard someone to a pre-registered account on your server. Use `xmpp://user@server?preauth=TOKEN`
2. you want to add a contact. Use PARS with an `ibr` option.
[10:57:11] <Ge0rG> marc: both options can share wire protocol
[10:57:17] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[10:57:19] <Ge0rG> marc: both use cases can share wire protocol
[10:57:45] <marc> yes
[10:58:23] <Ge0rG> marc: and I think they also can share an XEP
[10:58:39] *** Guus has left the room
[10:58:40] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:00:17] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[11:02:07] <marc> Ge0rG, yes, me too that's why I'm so stubborn about it :D
[11:02:58] *** daniel has left the room
[11:03:40] *** daniel has left the room
[11:04:57] *** marc shows as "online"
[11:04:58] *** andrey.g shows as "online"
[11:05:19] *** marc has left the room
[11:05:22] *** marc shows as "online"
[11:05:59] <Ge0rG> marc: it just doesn't make sense to map both use cases onto the same UI
[11:06:41] <marc> Ge0rG, on what side? inviter, invitee, both?
[11:06:58] <Ge0rG> marc: invitee
[11:07:08] <marc> Ge0rG, I'm fine with that
[11:07:23] <Ge0rG> marc: for the inviter, the admin use case can be mapped to some ad-hoc command without explicit client-side UI
[11:07:40] <Ge0rG> the user-inviting-user case should have a "Create invitation" UI
[11:07:59] <marc> Ge0rG, My demo showed the admin version
[11:08:11] <marc> Ge0rG, just imagine that a normal user would get the qr code directly
[11:08:21] <Ge0rG> marc: it's nice that you added the admin version into Conversatios, but that's quite some overkill
[11:08:24] <marc> Without the possibility to choose a username
[11:08:58] <marc> Ge0rG, actually that's all done automatically
[11:09:16] <marc> Because the server responds a form with the possiblity to choose a username
[11:09:23] <marc> There is no additional logic for this admin feature
[11:09:34] <marc> Since the UI is generated automatically by the form
[11:09:45] <marc> So I don't think that's overkill
[11:10:21] <marc> It's like generateUserInput(form);
[11:10:22] <Ge0rG> marc: okay, so if you are an admin, you get a data form for username / display name?
[11:10:31] <marc> Ge0rG, exactly
[11:10:38] <Ge0rG> marc: I think there is no need to XEPify that.
[11:10:41] <marc> username might still be optional but you get the possibility
[11:11:23] <Ge0rG> marc: we should XEPify the ad-hoc command name. And to a normal user, it should return a PARS;ibr link.
[11:11:28] <marc> Ge0rG, maybe not, but it would prevent user/admin defined behaviour...
[11:11:46] <Ge0rG> marc: if you are an admin, it might return a PARS;ibr link or a data form asking for a username
[11:11:54] <marc> Yes
[11:11:59] <marc> That's my idea
[11:12:14] *** Guus has left the room
[11:12:15] <Ge0rG> marc: if you leave out the username, it will return a PARS;ibr link. If you enter one, it will return an onboarding link of `xmpp://user@server;preauth=TOKEN`
[11:12:37] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:12:43] <marc> Ge0rG, looks good to me
[11:13:42] <Ge0rG> marc: so what needs to be XEPified is: ad-hoc command name; URI formats for both use cases; (approximate) client behavior for both use cases; wire-format for IBR
[11:13:50] <Ge0rG> +; dependency on PARS
[11:14:46] *** lskdjf shows as "online"
[11:15:28] <Ge0rG> marc: what I really like about the admin use-case is that it finally allows to register on a server using a one-time-token
[11:15:48] <marc> Ge0rG, yes!
[11:16:52] <Ge0rG> There used to be an Easy_Account_Creation page on the wiki
[11:21:30] <pep.> Finally caught up with all your messages! Good to know you're getting somewhere :)
[11:21:37] <marc> :D
[11:22:14] <marc> I think we should re-use ?register action, right?
[11:23:07] *** ralphm has joined the room
[11:23:20] <pep.> iiuc, that means as a server admin I'll be able to issue registration tokens right? and have IBR wait for that token
[11:23:42] <marc> pep., yes
[11:23:45] <Ge0rG> marc: you mean https://xmpp.org/registrar/querytypes.html#register
[11:24:05] <marc> Yes
[11:24:37] <Ge0rG> marc: do you want me to write the XEP?
[11:25:01] <pep.> Obviously as a server admin I should be able to allow more people to issue tokens. Allowing everybody to issue these is not really smart though, right?
[11:25:21] *** jubalh has joined the room
[11:25:22] <marc> Ge0rG, we can work together on it
[11:25:48] <marc> pep., You can specify a set of people which are allowed to generate tokens or something like that
[11:25:55] <pep.> yeah
[11:25:56] <marc> But that really depends on your service
[11:27:05] <Ge0rG> pep.: you could disable generic IBR and use this mechanism to allow all your users to invite other users.
[11:27:20] <marc> exactly
[11:27:41] <pep.> Ge0rG, I guess I could. Or have a blacklist rather than whitelist
[11:27:53] <Ge0rG> pep.: how is that supposed to work?
[11:28:11] *** arc has left the room
[11:28:16] *** arc has joined the room
[11:28:39] <Ge0rG> marc: there is also https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/xep-0235-0.3.html
[11:29:05] <marc> Ge0rG, if you're fine with token expiration I think an other topic which need to be disucussed is how we handle/limit the number of invitations
[11:29:06] <pep.> Maybe it's not worth it, I have never been target of spam so you know better. But if a spammer gets one than it's similar to open IBR again
[11:29:08] <Ge0rG> Eh, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0235.html
[11:29:26] <Ge0rG> marc: I think that is absolutely out-of-scope
[11:29:28] <pep.> They'd be able to generate tokens etc.
[11:29:50] <pep.> You can traceback where it came from though
[11:30:07] *** moparisthebest has joined the room
[11:30:13] <marc> Ge0rG, we should at least define an error for that
[11:30:29] <Ge0rG> pep.: right, one could easily kick the spammer and all of their friends.
[11:30:44] <marc> Ge0rG, nothing is more annyoing to a user if you get something like "doesn't work at the moment, try again later!"
[11:30:52] <Ge0rG> marc: I'm sure we can re-use existing IBR errors
[11:31:12] <marc> Ge0rG, I mean for token/invitation generation
[11:31:35] <Ge0rG> And there is https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/user-auth.html
[11:32:06] <Ge0rG> marc: the ad-hoc command should always return a token, just maybe not with an `ibr` tag.
[11:32:49] <marc> Ge0rG, that would be confusing ;)
[11:33:01] <Ge0rG> marc: to whom?
[11:33:12] <Ge0rG> marc: the default use case is to generate a PARS uri
[11:33:26] <Ge0rG> marc: if you are talking of the admin use case, yes, it should return an error.
[11:33:28] <marc> sometimes you have the ability to create an account sometime not?
[11:33:35] <marc> +s
[11:33:48] <Ge0rG> marc: for the user use case, the server generates a PARS or a PARS;ibr link
[11:34:05] <Ge0rG> marc: depending on whether user-initiated account creation is allowed on the server.
[11:34:20] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[11:35:14] <Ge0rG> marc: a non-ibr PARS link will mean that the invitee's client is responsible for account creation
[11:35:54] <marc> Ge0rG, just thought about the case where an inviter creates too much PARS;ibr tokens
[11:36:21] <marc> Maybe you want some policy to limit the number of PARS;ibr tokens
[11:36:54] <Ge0rG> marc: maybe. But there is no need to expose that to the inviter's client
[11:39:20] *** stefandxm has left the room
[11:40:07] <marc>
(1) Marc invites somebody without account -> server generates PARS;ibr -> nice
(2) Marc invites somebody without account -> server generates PARS only -> invitee and Marc are confused
[11:40:45] <marc> Ge0rG, maybe I don't get your idea but this is how I understood your approach
[11:40:56] <Ge0rG> marc: (2) Marc invites somebody without account -> server generates PARS only -> invitee opens link in yaxim and registers on yax.im -> nice
[11:41:02] *** ralphm has joined the room
[11:41:37] <marc> Ge0rG, sounds like a bad idea to me... not every client provides a xmpp server?
[11:42:23] *** intosi shows as "online"
[11:42:41] <Ge0rG> marc: no, but the ones implementing PARS do :P
[11:42:45] <jonasw> for now
[11:42:56] <marc> Ge0rG, Does PARS require a client software to provide a xmpp server?
[11:43:11] <Ge0rG> marc: actually, I forgot to add that part to the XEP
[11:43:18] <marc> Ge0rG, :p
[11:43:56] <Ge0rG> marc: but yes, I think that a client implementing PARS needs to have a sensible user-onboarding flow that does not depend on the invitee.
[11:44:18] <jonasw> Ge0rG, so jabbercat better doesn’t implement PARS
[11:44:19] <Ge0rG> marc: it doesn't mean the client developer must run an IBR server, they can provide a list of public servers instead
[11:44:25] <jonasw> (I won’t get into the business of running a public server.)
[11:44:32] <jonasw> ah well
[11:44:57] <Ge0rG> jonasw: you can SRV-link jabbercat.im to the yaxim server :P
[11:45:02] <marc> :>
[11:45:17] <marc> Ge0rG, okay, I think I'm okay with your idea
[11:45:17] <jonasw> Ge0rG, will do
[11:45:17] <Ge0rG> jonasw: I'm pretty sure I can handle the additional load
[11:45:47] <Ge0rG> jonasw: btw, did you buy out jabber.cat already? :P
[11:45:57] <jonasw> no, won’t
[11:46:05] <jonasw> too politically unstable that TLD ;-)
[11:46:11] <Ge0rG> Heh.
[11:46:16] <Ge0rG> Still better than .io
[11:46:34] <marc> Although it may be very confusing if that happens to invitees who sit next to each, for example ^^
[11:46:37] <jonasw> does im have DNSSEC by now?
[11:46:41] <Ge0rG> jonasw: nope
[11:46:45] <jonasw> m(
[11:47:10] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[11:47:19] <Ge0rG> marc: why so?
[11:47:39] <marc> Ge0rG, because they don't get the same dialog
[11:47:39] *** intosi shows as "online"
[11:47:39] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Afwezig"
[11:47:58] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:48:06] <marc> Ge0rG, invitee A an create an account on the server and invitee B can choose some public server
[11:48:28] <jonasw> Ge0rG, but then I want private+persistent PEP on jabbercat.im!
[11:50:00] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[11:50:06] *** lumi shows as "online"
[11:50:15] <Ge0rG> jonasw: please star & comment on https://prosody.im/issues/485
[11:50:24] <jonasw> I won’t comment, Zash hates that
[11:50:32] <jonasw> (rightfully so)
[11:50:43] <jonasw> > PEP with permanent storage is now in mod_pep_plus and should be working. Thanks to Link Mauve!
[11:51:04] <pep.> Yeah, that's in trunk
[11:51:13] <Ge0rG> > Is this feature usable with 0.10?
*crickets*
[11:51:41] <pep.> 0.10, pff :)
[11:51:47] <edhelas> just to give you ideas, in Movim I've implemented an invitation system for MUC that generate a unique link https://nl.movim.eu/?login/GA1dbdSB
[11:52:08] <edhelas> once the user login it automatically ask him to add the MUC to the bookmarks and join
[11:52:41] <edhelas> it's a bit like Discords in doing
[11:52:53] <Ge0rG> edhelas: web-based stuff is easier
[11:53:04] <edhelas> yup
[11:53:09] <jonasw> I want that MUC invite integration thing
[11:53:32] <Ge0rG> edhelas: can you make it work with PARS and easy-xmpp-invitation? :P
[11:54:30] <edhelas> dunno
[11:54:32] <Ge0rG> "Timothée Jaussoinhat Sie eingeladen, einen Chatraum zu bet..." - the UI is cut off.
[11:54:57] <Guus> That's what you get for inventing such long words in your language!
[11:55:07] <Guus> shees, you're almost as bad as the Finnish!
[11:55:11] <edhelas> there's never enough place to display german messages
[11:55:13] <pep.> it's also cut off in english
[11:55:19] <Guus> oh. :)
[11:55:22] <jonasw> Guus, don’t insult the finnish
[11:55:27] <Ge0rG> edhelas: which is why German is a good UI testing language.
[11:55:27] <jonasw> they’ve got the most amazing language on this continent
[11:55:41] <jonasw> yeah, long words and long sentences :)
[11:55:46] <jonasw> and umlauts!
[11:55:55] <edhelas> they beat all of us at the Scrabble
[11:55:57] *** Guus has left the room
[11:55:57] *** Guus shows as "online"
[11:56:17] <pep.> edhelas, where is that in the UI btw? Where do I generate that
[11:56:24] <Ge0rG> My favorite was a bug report by a user that my app was lacking a button. It took me a looong while to find out that on some Android version, the OS developers removed text-wrapping from buttons, and the "OK" button was outside of the dialog
[11:56:24] <Guus> jonasw: I'm always laughing at subtitles Finnish tv, where one of the lines (Swedish), has words, and the other line (Finnish) has _a word_.
[11:56:33] <jonasw> :)
[11:56:37] <jonasw> that’s how amazing it is!
[11:56:41] <edhelas> pep. in a chatroom, click Menu > Invite
[11:56:54] <pep.> nice
[11:57:14] <Ge0rG> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26708976/alert-dialog-buttons-problems-in-android-l - this one, except that in my app, the button was completely gone!
[11:57:48] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[11:57:58] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:59:21] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[11:59:41] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[12:01:46] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:03:35] *** ralphm has joined the room
[12:04:15] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:04:21] *** uc has joined the room
[12:08:17] *** sonny shows as "away"
[12:09:14] *** Guus has left the room
[12:09:29] *** valo has left the room
[12:09:40] *** valo has joined the room
[12:09:41] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[12:09:44] *** sonny shows as "online"
[12:10:03] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[12:10:13] *** sezuan has joined the room
[12:10:19] *** uc has joined the room
[12:10:33] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[12:10:40] *** Guus shows as "online"
[12:18:01] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[12:18:23] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[12:19:53] *** sonny shows as "away"
[12:19:57] *** sezuan has left the room
[12:20:02] *** sezuan has joined the room
[12:20:31] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:20:31] *** sezuan has left the room
[12:21:36] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[12:22:07] *** valo has left the room
[12:22:20] *** valo has joined the room
[12:23:08] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:24:20] <Ge0rG> Should the ad-hoc command node be a human-readable short string or a unique identifier / URL?
[12:24:39] <jonasw> the latter
[12:24:58] <jonasw> there’s a separate name field thing
[12:25:05] *** Guus has left the room
[12:25:06] *** Guus shows as "online"
[12:25:13] <jonasw> cf. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0050.html#retrieve
[12:26:01] <Ge0rG> prosody is using URLs as node names, the XEP is using short identifiers.
[12:26:21] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:26:21] <Ge0rG> I'm not talking about the 'name' field but about 'node'
[12:26:21] <jonasw> URLs is probably safest
[12:26:23] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:26:27] <jonasw> me too
[12:26:47] *** Alex has joined the room
[12:26:55] *** sezuan has joined the room
[12:28:10] <Ge0rG> > Service Discovery requires that all 'node' values be unique within a given JID. This document requires that the 'node' value used in <command/> exactly match the value used in the <item/> element. It is the responsibility of the responder implementation to ensure each command's node is unique for their JID.
So short identifiers are valid as well, unless you support plugins that add more nodes.
[12:29:49] *** debacle has joined the room
[12:30:14] <jonasw> yup
[12:31:25] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:33:45] <Ge0rG> So for the sake of implementing an invitation ad-hoc-command, it should be a URL as well? Hmhm.
[12:34:09] <jonasw> one could probably re-use the URI the XEP will allocate
[12:36:30] <Ge0rG> you mean the XEP html URI?
[12:36:36] <jonasw> no
[12:36:44] <jonasw> urn:xmpp:fancy-invite-xep:0:fnord
[12:36:54] <jonasw> urn:xmpp:fancy-invite-xep:0:command
[12:36:58] <Ge0rG> ah, yes.
[12:39:14] *** Guus has left the room
[12:39:41] *** debacle shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:41:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:41:25] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:42:56] *** daniel has joined the room
[12:43:02] *** valo has left the room
[12:43:10] *** valo has joined the room
[12:44:15] *** debacle shows as "online"
[12:45:51] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Afwezig"
[12:45:57] *** intosi shows as "online"
[12:46:38] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:46:47] <marc> Ge0rG, are you writing the XEP atm?
[12:54:00] *** daniel has left the room
[12:54:27] *** daniel has joined the room
[12:54:59] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[12:55:00] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:56:54] *** Guus shows as "online"
[12:59:04] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[13:00:07] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[13:00:19] <Ge0rG> marc: not yet. Should I?
[13:01:05] *** daniel has joined the room
[13:02:49] <marc> Ge0rG, Just asking because your question regarding ad-hoc command
[13:03:05] *** pep. has left the room
[13:03:05] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:04:47] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:04:52] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:05:06] *** pep. has left the room
[13:05:06] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:06:22] *** nyco has left the room
[13:07:07] *** pep. has left the room
[13:07:07] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:07:44] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:08:16] *** sonny shows as "online"
[13:12:29] *** daniel has left the room
[13:12:33] *** daniel has joined the room
[13:13:37] *** debacle shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:14:51] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:16:06] *** uc has joined the room
[13:17:15] *** sonny has left the room
[13:17:33] *** debacle shows as "online"
[13:17:56] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:18:16] *** sonny shows as "online"
[13:18:17] <Ge0rG> marc: I was looking into what's needed to write that XEP
[13:19:35] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[13:21:04] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[13:22:35] *** debacle shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:22:48] *** stefandxm has left the room
[13:22:51] *** sonny shows as "away"
[13:24:26] *** sonny shows as "online"
[13:27:56] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:28:00] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:28:32] *** daniel has left the room
[13:28:35] *** daniel has joined the room
[13:29:35] *** debacle shows as "online"
[13:30:46] *** daniel has left the room
[13:30:52] *** daniel has joined the room
[13:35:25] *** Zash shows as "online"
[13:35:27] *** Zash shows as "online"
[13:38:00] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:38:11] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:40:37] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:40:44] *** marc has left the room
[13:40:51] *** nyco has joined the room
[13:40:57] *** marc shows as "online"
[13:42:26] <Ge0rG> found another onboarding bug in yaxim: if you open yaxim with an xmpp: Intent, and you don't have an account yet, it will error out.
[13:45:28] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:47:01] *** nyco has left the room
[13:47:20] *** daniel shows as "online"
[13:49:09] *** nyco has joined the room
[13:51:58] <jonasw> fix things!
[13:52:10] *** la|r|ma has joined the room
[13:53:20] <Ge0rG> Fixed. Looks good.
[13:54:22] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[13:54:36] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[13:55:16] <Ge0rG> Meh. Why is there no non-shady barcode scanner app that works in portrait mode?
[13:55:37] <jonasw> mine switches; is that important?
[13:56:01] <Ge0rG> yes, if you want to screen-record.
[13:56:41] <Ge0rG> especially since the launcher locks to portrait mode.
[13:57:07] *** debacle shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:57:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:58:00] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:58:06] <pep.> Ge0rG, marc, what are you going for in the end, improving PARS to include that use case, or another XEP?
[13:58:14] *** Alex has left the room
[13:58:16] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[14:00:29] *** jubalh shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:00:31] <Ge0rG> pep.: probably both
[14:02:59] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[14:05:17] <pep.> I'm filing a bug against dino for IBR and PARS
[14:07:07] *** debacle shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:09:07] <marc> pep., you mean regular IBR?
[14:09:21] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[14:09:37] *** Steve Kille has joined the room
[14:09:41] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[14:09:49] *** daniel shows as "online"
[14:11:15] *** pitchum has joined the room
[14:12:11] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:12:23] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:12:54] <pep.> 0077 yeah, at least, they don't have it apparently, from the quick search I did
[14:15:30] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:15:30] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[14:16:11] *** pitchum has left the room
[14:16:16] <Ge0rG> marc: https://op-co.de/tmp/easy-onboarding.mp4 (2.5MB)
[14:16:25] <Ge0rG> marc: https://op-co.de/tmp/easy-onboarding.mp4 (2.5MB; broken IPv6)
[14:16:48] *** nyco has left the room
[14:19:06] *** daniel has left the room
[14:19:45] *** moparisthebest has left the room
[14:19:45] *** moparisthebest has left the room
[14:20:00] *** moparisthebest has joined the room
[14:20:02] <marc> Ge0rG, nice!
[14:20:16] <marc> You already have a "parkedtextview"
[14:20:17] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[14:20:26] *** nyco has joined the room
[14:20:27] <pep.> Ge0rG, I feel that "Register a new account" check might be one check too many
[14:20:36] <marc> I searched one for Conversations
[14:20:40] <marc> pep., Indeed
[14:20:44] *** zinid shows as "online"
[14:21:01] <pep.> Ge0rG, mind you I don't want to force the account creation on that server
[14:21:04] <pep.> Just talking UX wise
[14:21:12] *** daniel shows as "online"
[14:21:39] <Ge0rG> marc: what's a parkedtextview?
[14:21:55] <Ge0rG> pep.: the usual approach is two buttons: "[login] [create]"
[14:22:18] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[14:22:47] <marc> A textview where you have a fixed text at the end (e.g. @example.com)
[14:22:55] <Ge0rG> marc: it's not parked, it's smart.
[14:23:06] <Ge0rG> marc: wait, I'll show you.
[14:23:28] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[14:23:36] <marc> Ge0rG, I found a textview on GitHub that promised to do that and it was called "ParkedTextView"
[14:23:43] <marc> I don't know if that's the correct term :D
[14:24:47] <Ge0rG> marc: https://op-co.de/tmp/autocomplete-jid.mp4
[14:25:24] <Ge0rG> marc: https://github.com/pfleidi/yaxim/blob/master/src/org/yaxim/androidclient/widget/AutoCompleteJidEdit.java
[14:25:51] <Ge0rG> marc: and if you tap into the hostname part, it will make it editable as well.
[14:26:04] <pep.> Ge0rG, who do I pay to appear in your server list?
[14:26:25] <marc> Ge0rG, that's nice! It is also possible to fix the domain part?
[14:26:41] <Ge0rG> pep.: PR against https://github.com/pfleidi/yaxim/blob/master/res/values/servers.xml
[14:26:49] <Ge0rG> marc: nope, not supported yet
[14:26:55] <marc> pep., In a perfect world this server list would be download from a server list provided by XSF or something like that
[14:27:02] <marc> +ed
[14:27:18] <mathieui> marc, in a perfect world we would have no need for xmpp
[14:27:39] <pep.> Ge0rG, k
[14:28:05] <pep.> mathieui, you mean everybody would be using WhatsApp?
[14:28:09] <Ge0rG> pep.: the former source is this:
`curl -s http://xmpp.net/services.xml | xml2 | awk -F= '/@jid=/ { print "\t\t<item>" $2 "</item>" }' | sort -n`
[14:28:30] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:29:03] <pep.> Ge0rG, and then you tested for IBR?
[14:29:13] <Ge0rG> pep.: no.
[14:29:26] <marc> Ge0rG, easy onboarding!!1! :D
[14:29:32] <Ge0rG> pep.: it's a generic public-server list for JID auto-completion, I don't have IBR flags.
[14:30:12] <pep.> I'm curious what would get included in the list
[14:30:33] <marc> We really need a good server list... :D
[14:31:08] <Ge0rG> marc: we need a list with meta-data, like hosting country, privacy regulations, ToS-TLDR, reliability, and of course a fancy logo.
[14:31:19] <Ge0rG> The logo is the most important part, people don't care about the others.
[14:31:58] <marc> Ge0rG, if meta-data includes XEPs, yes
[14:32:08] <SouL> +1 for the logo
[14:32:11] <pep.> Ge0rG, agreed, a server-list like that would be nice
[14:32:24] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:32:24] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:32:25] <Ge0rG> marc: there was some discussion on standards@ regarding that.
[14:32:30] <Ge0rG> Probably around a year ago
[14:34:23] *** Guus has left the room
[14:35:25] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[14:35:33] <marc> Yes, we need a badge and a list for public server which support all XEPs required for mobile devices, HTTP upload, OMEMO, etc.
[14:36:00] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:36:00] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[14:36:17] <Ge0rG> marc: you just volunteered.
[14:37:38] *** sonny has left the room
[14:37:42] *** sonny shows as "online"
[14:37:42] <pep.> marc, OMEMO is a client-side thing
[14:37:46] <pep.> well, PEP ~
[14:37:55] <marc> pep., No, it needs PEP
[14:38:09] <pep.> Sure
[14:38:24] <Ge0rG> The PARS proposal that daniel made also needs PEP. Private PEP
[14:38:39] <marc> Ge0rG, what's that?
[14:38:53] <marc> I mean the PARS proposal
[14:39:48] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[14:40:10] <Ge0rG> marc: current PARS requires the client to handle token generation and approval. Daniel suggested to make a private-PEP entry storing a HMAC key, so that the server can validate ingress tokens
[14:41:00] <pep.> I'm not sure I understand how that would work
[14:41:02] <jonasw> Ge0rG, your broken IPv6 is annoying
[14:41:10] <jonasw> mpv is now at more than a minute for trying to connect to your server
[14:41:15] <jonasw> can you please remove the AAAA records
[14:41:26] <daniel> Ge0rG, will it also be able to validate pokemon go tokens?
[14:41:31] <pep.> jonasw, yeah same, I resorted for wget / mpv instead :/
[14:41:33] *** nyco has left the room
[14:41:44] <pep.> jonasw, yeah same, I resorted to wget / mpv instead :/
[14:42:02] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:42:02] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:42:07] <jonasw> finally
[14:42:09] <jonasw> oh no
[14:42:15] <jonasw> ah yes
[14:42:26] *** Guus has left the room
[14:42:27] *** Guus has joined the room
[14:43:17] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:43:57] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[14:43:57] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:43:58] <jonasw> Ge0rG, hm, somehow the firs t screen seems cluttered
[14:44:07] <jonasw> is it possible to show *only* the dialogue without the othert suff in the background?
[14:44:12] <jonasw> is it possible to show *only* the dialogue without the other stuff in the background?
[14:44:26] <Ge0rG> jonasw: you will find bliss in RFC 6555
[14:44:40] <pep.> happy eyeball?
[14:44:44] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:44:44] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[14:44:48] <jonasw> Ge0rG, yeah, but I can’t make that magically happen
[14:44:48] <pep.> heh
[14:44:49] <Ge0rG> jonasw: the first screen of yaxim? the account creation one?
[14:44:52] <jonasw> yes
[14:45:09] <Ge0rG> jonasw: do what I would do. https://github.com/dino/dino/issues/208
[14:45:16] <jonasw> that is, make the dialogue full screen. what’s that called in android?
[14:45:27] <jonasw> Ge0rG, I don’t even know which component is at fault here
[14:45:41] *** jmpman has joined the room
[14:45:50] <jonasw> is it glibc for not doing this on connect(2)? is it mpv for not opening separate connections by itself? is it maybe even youtube-dl? I have no idea.
[14:46:33] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:47:24] <Ge0rG> jonasw: probably it's mpv
[14:47:46] <Ge0rG> youtube-dl -4, --force-ipv4 Make all connections via IPv4
[14:47:55] <jonasw> mpv didn’t accept -4
[14:48:04] <jonasw> also, ECHAN
[14:50:44] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:50:53] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:51:26] *** lumi shows as "online"
[14:51:59] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[14:52:50] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:52:50] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[14:53:05] *** daniel has left the room
[14:54:14] *** Guus has left the room
[15:00:15] *** stefandxm has left the room
[15:00:27] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:01:42] *** daniel has left the room
[15:01:47] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:02:01] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[15:02:35] *** Guus has joined the room
[15:02:38] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:02:39] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[15:07:07] *** daniel has left the room
[15:07:16] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:07:36] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[15:08:23] *** nyco has joined the room
[15:11:33] *** daniel has left the room
[15:11:39] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:12:01] *** daniel has left the room
[15:12:05] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:12:39] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:19:04] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:19:04] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:19:23] *** daniel has left the room
[15:20:55] *** Guus has left the room
[15:20:55] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:21:23] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:21:23] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[15:22:25] *** Alex has joined the room
[15:24:31] *** zinid has left the room
[15:24:58] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:25:24] *** nyco has left the room
[15:26:49] *** zinid shows as "online"
[15:26:52] *** nyco has joined the room
[15:27:22] *** jmpman has joined the room
[15:27:26] *** Alex has left the room
[15:27:31] *** Alex has joined the room
[15:28:52] *** Alex has left the room
[15:35:42] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:35:43] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:36:14] *** Guus has left the room
[15:40:12] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:40:12] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[15:45:19] *** tux has left the room
[15:46:38] *** jmpman has left the room
[15:46:50] *** jmpman has joined the room
[15:47:12] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:47:13] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:51:54] *** intosi shows as "online"
[15:52:12] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[15:53:47] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:54:01] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:54:13] *** intosi shows as "online"
[15:54:32] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:54:33] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[15:54:48] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:55:08] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:56:01] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:02:01] *** daniel shows as "online"
[16:03:22] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:03:26] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:05:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:06:06] *** Steve Kille has joined the room
[16:06:07] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:06:17] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[16:06:19] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:07:27] *** debacle shows as "online"
[16:07:50] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:08:13] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:12:19] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[16:12:19] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[16:19:18] *** zinid has left the room
[16:19:45] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:19:54] *** lumi has left the room
[16:21:27] *** intosi shows as "online"
[16:23:17] *** stefandxm has left the room
[16:26:35] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Afwezig"
[16:29:20] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:31:20] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:32:38] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:33:30] *** sonny has left the room
[16:33:35] *** sonny has joined the room
[16:36:43] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:36:46] *** Guus has left the room
[16:36:46] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:40:26] *** daniel has left the room
[16:40:27] <mathieui> https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipns/QmSgwwdejjsizQnKffKo6e84vfvBWCH5tnGpAwLPJVvhby/ if any german people are available, it may be interesting
[16:40:34] *** daniel shows as "online"
[16:41:29] *** ralphm has left the room
[16:43:31] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:43:34] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:44:01] *** debacle has left the room
[16:45:19] *** daniel has left the room
[16:46:06] *** Alex has joined the room
[16:46:13] *** zinid shows as "online"
[16:47:37] *** ralphm has joined the room
[16:47:50] <zinid> ipfs never works 😉
[16:48:14] *** Guus has left the room
[16:50:22] *** jubalh has left the room
[16:51:27] *** marc has left the room
[16:51:32] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[16:51:35] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[16:57:22] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[16:57:22] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[16:57:33] *** uc shows as "online"
[16:57:58] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:58:49] *** zinid has left the room
[17:01:45] *** daniel shows as "online"
[17:05:01] *** waqas has joined the room
[17:05:29] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[17:06:00] *** dwd shows as "online"
[17:07:34] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[17:08:47] *** jmpman has joined the room
[17:12:52] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:13:46] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:15:13] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:17:52] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:17:55] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:18:45] *** zinid shows as "online"
[17:20:25] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:22:53] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:22:57] *** waqas has left the room
[17:23:37] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[17:28:44] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:28:44] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[17:30:13] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:30:24] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:32:14] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:32:44] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:32:47] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:33:26] *** Guus shows as "online"
[17:34:19] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:34:22] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:34:47] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:34:47] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:34:59] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:35:15] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:36:15] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:36:33] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:37:27] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:37:46] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:37:48] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:38:24] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[17:38:27] *** Alex shows as "online"
[17:39:57] *** daniel has left the room
[17:40:02] *** daniel shows as "online"
[17:40:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:40:18] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:40:55] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:41:15] *** jubalh has joined the room
[17:41:30] *** jubalh has left the room
[17:43:27] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:45:02] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:45:36] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:46:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[17:46:26] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:46:29] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:47:29] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:47:39] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[17:47:53] *** daniel has left the room
[17:47:59] *** daniel shows as "online"
[17:48:12] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:48:18] *** jjrh has left the room
[17:49:39] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:52:02] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:52:16] *** dwd shows as "online"
[17:52:18] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:52:23] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:53:08] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Weekend"
[17:54:17] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[17:54:25] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[17:54:32] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[17:54:35] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:55:36] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:55:46] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:56:21] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[17:56:26] *** Alex shows as "online"
[17:56:54] *** @Alacer has left the room
[17:58:06] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:58:09] *** Holger has left the room
[17:58:21] *** Holger shows as "online"
[17:59:13] *** @Alacer has joined the room
[17:59:21] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:59:43] *** uc has left the room
[18:00:07] *** zinid has left the room
[18:00:18] *** zinid shows as "online"
[18:00:19] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:01:13] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:03:16] *** SamWhited has left the room
[18:05:50] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[18:06:27] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[18:06:29] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:11:12] *** stefandxm has left the room
[18:12:11] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:12:18] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:14:52] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[18:15:21] *** lumi has joined the room
[18:15:22] *** McKael shows as "online"
[18:15:22] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:17:25] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[18:17:25] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[18:20:11] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:20:48] *** waqas has joined the room
[18:20:49] *** waqas has left the room
[18:22:11] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:23:03] *** jubalh has joined the room
[18:25:19] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:25:25] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:26:27] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[18:26:56] *** Alex has left the room
[18:28:08] *** valo has left the room
[18:28:09] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:28:15] *** valo has joined the room
[18:28:15] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:29:47] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[18:29:47] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[18:30:42] *** McKael shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[18:32:13] *** Guus has left the room
[18:32:13] *** Guus shows as "online"
[18:37:18] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:37:25] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:45:14] *** Guus has left the room
[18:48:50] *** Guus shows as "online"
[18:50:24] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:53:49] *** zinid has left the room
[18:55:18] *** Alex has joined the room
[18:57:53] *** daniel has left the room
[18:58:04] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:02:04] <Alex> he guys, lets start the member meeting in 2 minutes
[19:02:54] <Zash> Feels like we just had this, with the board/council not too long ago :)
[19:04:07] *Alex bangs the gavel
[19:04:33] <Alex> here is our Agenda for today:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2017-12-08
[19:04:41] <mathieui> Alex, it’s supposed to be at 20:00 UTC ?
[19:04:44] <mathieui> it’s 19:00 right now
[19:05:12] <Alex> then I put it wrong in teh Cal ;-)
[19:05:31] <mathieui> right, wiki says 19:00 but latest members mailing says 20:00
[19:05:36] <Zash> 19:05 even!
[19:06:27] <Alex> lets do it now, as I have to leave soon, when there are no concerns
[19:06:53] <Ge0rG> What if there are members wanting to vote at 20:00?
[19:07:11] <SamWhited> Does anyone ever actually want to vote in the meeting? It doesn't matter, let's just do it now while Alex is here.
[19:07:25] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[19:07:27] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:08:00] <Zash> If you wanna be Procedurally Correct, then the time in the announcement is probably the best. And since it is later, it's also probably safer.
[19:08:54] <Zash> SamWhited: Last minute proxy-bot-votes happen tho
[19:09:37] <Zash> Altho if the original original announcement said yesterday then everyone should have voted already, so ..
[19:10:23] <SamWhited> Does it ever actually come down to one or two votes then? Why try to fix it until it's a problem?
[19:12:33] <Alex> SamWhited agreed, lets continue
[19:12:38] <Zash> Go for it
[19:12:50] <Alex> 1) Call for Quorum
[19:13:13] <Alex> as you can see 34 members voted via memberbot, so we have a quorum
[19:13:54] <Alex> 2) Items Subject to a Vote, new and returning members, you can see the lists of applicants here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q4_2017
[19:14:04] <Alex> 3) Opportunity for XSF Members to Vote in the Meeting
[19:14:16] <Alex> anybody here who wants to vote now?
[19:14:26] <Alex> memberbot would be still up for that
[19:16:35] *** zinid shows as "online"
[19:17:00] <Alex> ok, will start working on the results then
[19:18:22] *** daniel shows as "online"
[19:18:33] <Zash> In case anyone had wanted to, but showed up at the announced time, then it'd be a bit weird.
[19:19:29] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:21:29] <mathieui> Zash, well, initial voting time has already passed, and we have to resolve conflicts only if a number of people significant enough to change results take issue with that
[19:23:03] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[19:23:12] *** jjrh has left the room
[19:23:15] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[19:23:46] *** jjrh has left the room
[19:23:58] <Alex> 4) Announcement of Voting Results
[19:24:20] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[19:24:21] <Alex> when you reload the page at:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2017-12-08#Announcement_of_Voting_Results
you can see the results
[19:24:44] <Alex> all new and returning members are accepted
[19:24:47] <Ge0rG> Congratulations, everybody!
[19:25:05] <Ge0rG> 🎆
[19:25:14] <mathieui> Congratulations to all returning members and pep.
[19:25:29] <Alex> 5) Any Other Business?
[19:27:16] <Alex> looks like there is none
[19:27:27] <Alex> 6) Formal Adjournment
[19:27:34] <Alex> I motion that we adjourn
[19:27:38] <mathieui> seconded
[19:27:47] *Alex bangs the gavel
[19:27:55] <Alex> thanks guys
[19:27:58] <SamWhited> Thanks alex; and congrats all!
[19:27:58] <mathieui> thanks for the work, as always, Alex
[19:28:20] <SamWhited> Ge0rG: In most text fields on my machine I can tell what that was… in Android I can tell what that was… in my console:
[19:28:21] <SamWhited> https://i.imgur.com/3jykNf1.png
[19:28:27] <pep.> I'm interested in hearing about the 4 No votes, ping me in private if you want to talk about it
[19:28:29] <Alex> and sorry about the time confustion. I work in too many different timezones these days ;-)
[19:29:53] <Alex> pep.: maybe related to the short application, at least this is some kind of pattern I have seen in the past
[19:30:12] *** jjrh has left the room
[19:31:13] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[19:31:39] *** jjrh has left the room
[19:31:50] <pep.> Ok
[19:32:16] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[19:32:31] <Ge0rG> SamWhited: what kind of console is that? Maybe you need Smiley Hugification™
[19:32:52] *** zinid has left the room
[19:33:22] *** jjrh has left the room
[19:33:27] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[19:34:06] <SamWhited> Ge0rG: mcabber on xfce4-term (which is weird, I realized I wasn't actually sure since I don't use xfce4 anymore, but apparently I left the terminal installed)…
[19:34:46] <Ge0rG> weird indeed.
[19:35:32] <lovetox> pep. i like you, just wanted to put it out there.
[19:38:12] *** daniel has left the room
[19:38:14] <pep.> lovetox: 😘
[19:38:17] *** daniel shows as "online"
[19:38:53] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[19:38:53] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[19:39:26] *** xnyhps has left the room
[19:39:27] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:40:20] *** stefandxm has left the room
[19:43:15] *** Alex shows as "away"
[19:47:16] *** SamWhited has left the room
[19:47:17] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[19:49:22] *** Guus has left the room
[19:49:25] *** Guus shows as "online"
[19:49:52] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:50:45] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[19:50:45] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[19:52:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[19:52:40] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[19:57:09] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[20:01:11] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:01:11] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:09:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:09:40] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[20:15:42] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:15:42] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:17:18] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:17:18] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[20:20:31] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[20:20:32] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:23:04] *** jjrh has left the room
[20:23:08] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[20:23:59] *** daniel has left the room
[20:27:14] *** jjrh has left the room
[20:27:20] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[20:28:12] *** ralphm has left the room
[20:30:12] *** daniel shows as "online"
[20:41:45] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[20:41:54] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:41:54] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:42:10] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[20:42:42] <SouL> Congratulations everyone, and also pep. !
[20:43:33] *** ralphm has joined the room
[20:43:38] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:43:38] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[20:44:13] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[20:44:18] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:44:41] *** Alex has left the room
[20:47:20] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:49:19] *** daniel shows as "online"
[20:49:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:49:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[20:50:01] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:50:35] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:51:10] *** Tobias has joined the room
[20:54:02] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[20:54:44] *** jubalh has joined the room
[20:55:15] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[20:56:20] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:56:23] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[21:02:05] *** sonny has left the room
[21:02:09] *** sonny has joined the room
[21:05:36] *** sonny has left the room
[21:05:38] *** sonny has joined the room
[21:10:39] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:11:17] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[21:12:17] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[21:13:11] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[21:14:16] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[21:14:21] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[21:14:45] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[21:15:05] *** jubalh has left the room
[21:17:40] *** daniel has left the room
[21:17:46] *** daniel shows as "online"
[21:19:01] *** daniel has left the room
[21:19:15] *** daniel shows as "online"
[21:20:52] <Zash> Bunneh: draft uta-email-deep
[21:20:54] <Bunneh> Zash: "Cleartext Considered Obsolete: Use of TLS for Email Submission and Access", Keith Moore, Chris Newman, 2017-12-06,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-12.txt
[21:21:29] *** nyco has left the room
[21:21:45] <Zash> 2014 called, or something
[21:21:49] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[21:21:54] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[21:22:17] *** nyco has joined the room
[21:23:48] *** ralphm has joined the room
[21:24:00] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[21:24:09] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[21:24:15] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[21:25:41] <Ge0rG> Zash: it was 2014 for Jabber, and that was already a decade late
[21:26:17] <Zash> Better late than never?
[21:26:55] <Ge0rG> Yeah, right
[21:28:24] <Ge0rG> Oh, that rfc is for MUA access to servers. They are really a decade late
[21:28:39] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:28:39] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[21:29:22] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[21:36:45] *** daniel has left the room
[21:36:48] *** daniel shows as "online"
[21:41:34] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[21:44:09] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:44:09] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:46:18] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:46:18] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[21:48:49] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[21:49:11] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[21:51:36] <moparisthebest> interesting they chose the term 'Implicit TLS'
[21:51:47] <moparisthebest> we settled on 'Direct TLS' for 368
[21:52:52] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[21:53:02] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[21:53:22] <moparisthebest> but I'm excited we are back to doing that for mail, I mean I have been, because it lets me multiplex on SNI and use 443 for imap+smtp+pop
[21:53:32] <moparisthebest> but I'm excited it's going back to recommended status :)
[21:54:00] *** zinid has left the room
[21:55:10] *** lumi shows as "online"
[21:55:21] <moparisthebest> if that reaches draft can we bring back implicit 5223 also ? :D
[21:57:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:57:40] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:57:49] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[21:57:49] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[21:58:46] *** Guus has left the room
[21:58:59] *** Guus shows as "online"
[21:59:44] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:03:07] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[22:03:51] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[22:03:51] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[22:07:34] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[22:08:06] *** lumi shows as "online"
[22:09:06] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[22:09:29] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[22:09:29] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[22:09:40] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[22:09:42] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:09:44] *** Lance has joined the room
[22:09:44] *** Lance shows as "online"
[22:14:49] *** ralphm has joined the room
[22:15:31] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[22:15:31] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[22:15:50] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[22:15:55] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[22:16:56] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:18:00] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[22:19:15] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[22:19:24] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[22:19:43] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:20:37] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[22:23:12] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:24:57] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[22:30:25] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[22:33:12] *** jubalh shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:43:18] *** Guus has left the room
[22:43:25] *** Guus shows as "online"
[22:47:22] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[22:48:20] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[22:50:18] *** daniel has left the room
[22:50:23] *** daniel shows as "online"
[22:52:06] *** jjrh has left the room
[22:52:09] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[22:52:14] *** jjrh has left the room
[22:52:45] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[22:55:09] *** SamWhited has left the room
[23:01:37] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[23:01:52] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[23:03:45] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:04:20] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:08:37] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[23:13:13] *** daniel has left the room
[23:15:23] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[23:16:36] *** daniel shows as "online"
[23:16:38] *** sonny has left the room
[23:16:43] *** sonny has joined the room
[23:17:36] *** sonny has left the room
[23:17:40] *** sonny has joined the room
[23:19:32] *** daniel has left the room
[23:19:39] *** daniel shows as "online"
[23:19:43] *** sonny has left the room
[23:19:46] *** sonny has joined the room
[23:25:08] *** Lance has joined the room
[23:25:08] *** Lance shows as "online"
[23:27:28] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[23:28:46] *** jubalh has left the room
[23:30:27] *** dwd shows as "online"
[23:30:56] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:31:39] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:33:46] *** daniel has left the room
[23:38:03] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[23:42:39] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[23:45:15] *** Lance shows as "away"
[23:45:52] *** Lance shows as "online"
[23:54:07] *** stefandxm has left the room