XSF Discussion - 2018-01-07

Ge0rG, since xmpp://example.com/inviter@example.com is not allowed (authority needs to be a full JID) the account creation process always requires a username for the new account

So this is not optional anylonger

Is it not?

Zash, hm?

Is xmpp://hostname/ invalid? Where does it say that?

Zash, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2 See "iauthxmpp"

That's too bad :(

Ge0rG, xep-0077 defines ?register action where the path component contains the server to be register on. I think that conflicts with our URI xmpp://invitee@example.com/inviter@example.com?register;preauth=TOKEN

God damn... ôÔ

marc: except you don't need the inviter address in there because it's implicitly known via the token

Ge0rG, only if the provider hosts the landing page

marc: you know who invited you from the oob channel. The server knows from the token

marc: the inviter address isn't reliable anyway, somebody could manipulate it

Ge0rG, okay, that's fine for me

just asked because we always used this URI format

marc: you used it. I didn't... 😜

Ge0rG, we "defined" this some time ago ;)

marc: I'm pretty sure I told you from the beginning to leave away the inviter JID

I don't think 5122 says it needs to be a full JID. It does say it needs to have a localpart, though, which is probably what you really care about.

ha, according to the ABNF from the RFC, 'xmpp:' is a correct URI

zinid: yes, it's the short form for "do more Jabber!"

ok, I will give the link "xmpp:" to everyone who asks about jabber

for the record, this is a problem of RFC 3986, due to weird 'reg-name' definition

reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )

ah

> If the URI scheme defines a default for host, then that default applies when the host subcomponent is undefined or when the registered name is empty (zero length). For example, the "file" URI scheme is defined so that no authority, an empty host, and "localhost" all mean the end-user's machine, whereas the "http" scheme considers a missing authority or empty host invalid.

so xmpp: should be translated to xmpp:localhost from what I understand

Which doesn't make any sense, except if serverless becomes a thing

marc, could you submit your ProtoXEP soon-ish please?

I think we’re having a prime example here why it’s nice to develop this as Experimental ASAP

(every few days somebody asks for something to easier onboard people, and it’d be nice to be able to point to that protoxep in the inbox at least, even better if we had that experimental XEP)

Yes, I'm anticipating it as well.

marc, if there are open TODOs in your XEP that is entirely fine

Yaxim 0.9.3 will be finished soon, and it would be awesome to have that in it

(since you’ve got a PoC implementation, I presume that it is implementable)

does the xep require server interaction?

zinid: yes, ad-hoc commands to generate tokens and server support to redeem them in IBR or roster subscription