-
Ge0rG
Kev: is there any progress on the 0050 PRs?
-
Kev
There isn't.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: any more ideas regarding the pidgin re-addition to the client list?
-
Kev
I haven't given it any thought, do I need to?
-
Ge0rG
I wonder if it's possible to instrument something like shodan to search for XMPP servers.
-
MattJ
Sure
-
Ge0rG
I mean, we need to send the client banner first, right?
-
MattJ
I've used it to discover Prosody instances
-
Ge0rG
MattJ: oh, that's interesting. Tell me more about it.
-
MattJ
I don't know exactly what it sends, but it triggers an error response
-
MattJ
Prosody's particular error message is unique, so searching for it yields results
-
Ge0rG
`GET / HTTP/1.0`?
-
MattJ
Quite possibly
-
MattJ
I suspect it understands XMPP somewhat though, but obviously you can't determine the host from the IP address so it still doesn't work
-
pep.
gdpr meeting in ~5
-
jonasw
what
-
jonasw
crap
-
jonasw
I totally forgot
-
jonasw
I need to marinate some meat first, so I’ll be a bit AFK-ish
-
pep.
it's 12:30CEST right?
-
jonasw
yeah
-
pep.
hehe
-
jonasw
taking the laptop with me
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, winfried, ping
-
winfried
Guys, sorry, I will be the available in 10 minutes
-
pep.
I'll put stuff on the wiki then, I sent the minutes quite late yesterday
-
jonasw
sounds good
-
Ge0rG
10 minutes for me as well
-
jonasw
what a perfect fit
-
Ge0rG
pep.: 👍
-
pep.
Hmm, so we already had a bit on 1.1c for s2s in the wiki, not as detailed
-
winfried
here I am
-
Ge0rG
AOL!
- winfried hears an echo from long ago
-
Ge0rG
It looks like we all might be there.
-
winfried
yes
-
jonasw
.
-
pep.
!
-
pep.
*bang*?
-
jonasw
baaang
-
jonasw
winfried, are you going to chair?
-
winfried
*bang*
-
winfried
do we have enough on 1.1a-c?
-
pep.
S2S outbound on 1.1c?
-
pep.
did we cover that?
-
pep.
I guess the inbound covers more or less both actually
-
Ge0rG
what happened to transports?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes, noticed that one too
-
winfried
transport will be a processing to cover in c2s too!
-
Ge0rG
1.1c inbound and outbound is symmetrical, i.e. there is no need to differentiate. we need to differentiate in 1.1d though
-
winfried
yesx
-
pep.
fair enough
-
winfried
With the note of transports, I think we should move to 1.1d, where the fun begins...
-
Ge0rG
winfried: do you have an update on the "third contries" part?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes
- winfried opens page 19 of his bible
- Ge0rG braces for liturgy recital
-
winfried
criteria: 3.2a offering services to EU citizens or 3.2b monitoring behaviour within the EU
-
jonasw
I’m fully here now
-
winfried
3.2a: just offering in english or so is not enough, but a multiple of factors like english and accepting euro's and shipping to the eu is
-
jonasw
winfried, what would the equivalent of "shipping" would be? not denying service?
-
winfried
jonasw: with a service like XMPP it is quite tricky to judge
-
jonasw
yeah
-
Ge0rG
winfried: oh, that's too broad. I was asking about s2s connections from the EU to third countries.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: ah, ok
-
winfried
Ge0rG: that one is quite clear cut, is chapter 5
-
pep.
First the laws of said country have to be deemed adequate right?
-
Ge0rG
winfried: chapter 5 is rather long. Can you provide a TL;DR, as this is going to affect s2s
-
winfried
chapter 5 has different grounds, adequacy is just one of them
-
winfried
(adequacy is art 45)
-
pep.
pff, I don't want to imagine an implementation for that
-
winfried
diving further in my bible....
-
Ge0rG
Ah, so transfer to "adequate" countries does not require any additional measures
-
winfried
Ge0rG: correct
-
pep.
yeah, art45
-
pep.
45.1
-
winfried
art 46: other possibilities are: Binding Corporate rules (when transfer inside one cooperation) (art 46.2b)
-
Ge0rG
so adequate and EU countries are the same category for s2s
-
Ge0rG
winfried: 46 probably doesn't apply.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: because?
-
pep.
doesn't it?
-
pep.
Unless you implementation forbids s2s to non-adequate third-countries✎ -
pep.
Unless your implementation forbids s2s to non-adequate third-countries ✏
-
Ge0rG
winfried: or at least the contract/same-corp provisions of it
-
Ge0rG
unless all xmpp servers are operated by the same BigCorp
-
pep.
that's 47 right?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: correct BCR (46.2b) doesn't apply
-
pep.
Ah 46.2b right
-
pep.
that refers to 47
-
Ge0rG
46 is written in legalese, and I fail to parse it right now
-
pep.
isn't all
-
winfried
yeah, I really need my bible here...
-
winfried
46.2c is interesting: standard clauses
-
Ge0rG
pep.: no, other parts are more appropriate
-
pep.
So we're trying to figure out if we'll have to filter out s2s right
-
Ge0rG
winfried: I suppose 46.2c means something like safe harbor/whatisitcallednow
-
pep.
Or how much✎ -
pep.
And/or how much ✏
-
Ge0rG
pep.: right
-
pep.
That is really meh. Who was talking about trying to reach email people again
-
pep.
See how they cope with that.
-
winfried
no, safe harbour is part of the EU-US adequacy decision: "if you keep to privacy shield, it s adequate"
-
pep.
"Hey users, you can't reach half of the planet from now on"
-
pep.
winfried, how is this privacy shield defined?
-
pep.
hmm, what about 49.1a?
-
Ge0rG
AFAIU third countries are also covered by user consent
-
pep.
yes just what I pointed out I think
-
winfried
privacy shield is a (before GDPR) construct to legalise EU-US transfer, saying: when keeping to privacy shield, then the protection in the US is adequate and permitted
-
jonasw
I’m trying to find a clue about it in the google privacy policy atm
-
winfried
(And Schrems finely argued it was not adequate becease the NSA was left out it)
-
winfried
So now al companies leave adequacy as ground and use standard clauses
-
pep.
I'd say article 49 applies quite a lot
-
jonasw
so, there’s nothing in that
-
jonasw
(that = google privacy policy)
-
jonasw
with respect to federation
-
jonasw
I begin to suspect that the following applies:
-
winfried
jonasw: you just found an interesting legal gap at google ;-)
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: sue them!
-
jonasw
1. the user has a clear intent to share a message with a recipient when they send a message. 2. it is up to the recipient how they handle the data. this includes whether they consent to it being stored on their server and for how long
-
pep.
winfried, they have more laywers than you will ever have
-
jonasw
now how that works in the light of germany’s whatsapp decision, I don’t know.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I tend to agree with you here, however... by sending a message you only show implicit consent in that the message is to be delivered to the recepient, not that it shall be analyzed to create a profile of your sex life.
-
winfried
pep.: yes, but for example when analysing Microsofts new terms, I found over a douzen issues that were violating EU law
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s true, but if the receiving party consented to that?
-
jonasw
that’s a matter between you and the receiving party then, isn’t it?
-
jonasw
I mean the receiving party could also simply upload all your messages manually to some service which does that to gain some moneyz.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: yes.
-
jonasw
so nothing which concerns server operators?
-
pep.
interesting
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: the receiving party must gain your consent to process your data.
-
jonasw
but that’s #notourdepartment?
-
Ge0rG
yes
-
pep.
Ge0rG, by subscribing?
-
jonasw
so we can simply not give a fuck?
-
pep.
Or joining a MUC, or ..
-
jonasw
I don’t think that subscription is consent for any level of advanced processing.
-
winfried
49.1b may be very applicable here
-
jonasw
not for art 9.1 type processing at least
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: maybe. Maybe we need to explicitly tell the user that their messages might leave the EU
-
pep.
winfried, if 49.1b is not enough, there's still 49.1a
-
pep.
Ge0rG, 49.1a then
-
pep.
explicit consent
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, mmm, I feel that this might be a reasonable assumption.
-
jonasw
like, if you send a message overseas, it’ll be overseas, period.
-
jonasw
however, it’s unclear that you might send a message overseas when I send a message to somebody who is in e.g. sweden but has an account at $USProvider
-
pep.
I fear users do not know if it will be overseas, but we can just state the possibility in anycase
-
Ge0rG
I'm pretty sure we can argue that 49.1b applies here: you have a service contract with the XMPP server, and if you want your messages to be sent overseas, the server will happily do so
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: $USProvider is subject to GDPR then.
-
winfried
pep.: my reading is you need one of 49.1a-49.1g
-
pep.
winfried, yes
-
jonasw
I think c applies
-
pep.
if 45 and 46 don't apply
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I don't thing 49.1c applies here
-
pep.
jonasw, as in, contract between server operators ?
-
winfried
49.1c needs a contract between server operators and it needs to be in the interest of the user. Mainly the first one is problematic, the second one may be
-
Ge0rG
I think that 1b is better applicable here.
-
pep.
Well we don't have to settle on one, unless it's 1a
-
pep.
If both apply, great
-
winfried
49.1b says (more or less) and analouge to 6.1b: when it is needed to perform the request of the user
-
Ge0rG
Yup.
-
pep.
yes
-
winfried
and that one is quite clear: we federate and transfer on request of the user
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, oh indeed I misread
-
pep.
Indeed, I only have that s2s connection if a user requests it
-
winfried
49.1a feels a bit like a minefield to me
-
Ge0rG
So I'd argue that transfer of content is covered by 49.1b because the user wanted the content to be sent to wherever, and meta-data is covered because the user wanted to subscribe or somesuch.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
-
pep.
Seems good to me
-
Ge0rG
It might be a good tech TODO to have that written in the data policy.
- pep. fires vim
-
Ge0rG
people that you approve as contacts will be able to see your online status.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, mmm, with subcsription I’d argue that some things aren’t obvious.
- winfried is listening
-
jonasw
ah, that’s what you meant
-
jonasw
makes sense
-
pep.
jonasw, I think we ought to make them obvious in the policies
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: let's make a list
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, ack
-
jonasw
1. vcard avatar is always publicly visible
-
jonasw
2. pep avatar and other pep things are most likely visible to your contacts. what things are there, besides avatars?
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: vcard avatar is public data. maybe good to have a separate category for that
-
jonasw
3. last online timestamp, status message, online status, list of online devices
-
jonasw
list of online devices also means things like software version btw
-
jonasw
because if you know the resource, you can IQ
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I think that #2 is actually well covered implicitly. If you "play a tune", you want that to be shared with your friends
-
jonasw
possibly
-
jonasw
it’s the clients job to make that explicit at least
-
Ge0rG
I don't want to open _that_ can of worms
-
jonasw
yupp
-
jonasw
that’s fine
-
jonasw
let’s focus on what must be done on the protocol/federation/server level.
-
Ge0rG
so we need two lists: things shared with everyone; things shared with contacts
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes
-
Ge0rG
the latter might contain surprises to the user.
-
Ge0rG
with everyone = with everyone who knows your JID
-
pep.
And things not shared, as in credentials etc., even if obvious
-
winfried
Ge0rG: you can assume a JID to be publicaly known
-
pep.
Ge0rG, maybe define "everyone who knows you JID" a bit more? contacts, non-anon MUC owners
-
Ge0rG
winfried: can I?
-
pep.
other server operators
-
pep.
winfried, I don't think so
-
Ge0rG
"contacts, chatrooms and their server operators"
-
winfried
don't know if that discussion is *very* relevant here/now but in practice most people publish their JID, so they can be contacted...
-
Ge0rG
winfried: if you publish your JID, your JID is obviously public
-
Ge0rG
winfried: but what if not
-
pep.
I'm going to go soon-ish, starting to get hungry
-
pep.
This list falls under things to be transparent about in the privacy policy then
-
Ge0rG
pep.: yes, it's for the tech TODO
-
pep.
yep
-
winfried
+1
-
Ge0rG
so do we have 1.1d covered now=✎ -
Ge0rG
so do we have 1.1d covered now? ✏
-
winfried
with the remark of sensitive data or not
-
Ge0rG
right.
-
winfried
(LQ1)
-
pep.
Ok
-
Ge0rG
the Sword of GDamoclesPR
-
pep.
Can we plan next?
-
winfried
yes
-
winfried
I will try if I can get some opinions on sensitive data in some lawyer groups I participate in
-
jonasw
I’m sure it’s sensitive data. I’d just like to have clarification on if simple store-and-forward (and no analysis) brings us into 9.1 realm
-
winfried
jonasw: exactly
-
jonasw
neat
-
jonasw
so, date of next?
-
jonasw
my constraints shifted and I’m unavailable thursday this week
-
pep.
not tomorrow if possible
-
pep.
Fri noon?
-
jonasw
friday would wfm, something like 10:30 CEST -- 11:30 CEST e.g.
-
Ge0rG
so friday?
-
pep.
I'm not available in the morning
-
jonasw
is 10:30 still morning at yours?
-
pep.
yes
-
jonasw
I see
-
Ge0rG
I'm blocked after 1300CEST
-
pep.
before 12 is morning :P
-
pep.
hmm
-
jonasw
mmm, I can’t promise 12:00CEST
-
Ge0rG
pep.: set up an alarm :P
-
pep.
Ge0rG, I have paid job to do
-
pep.
In between :p
-
Ge0rG
yeah, right :P
-
winfried
Friday I am available between 12:00 and 13:30 CEST
-
pep.
I can do 9:30 here, 8:30UTC
-
pep.
if it doesn't go more than an hour
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: take your laptop to the lunch break? ;)
-
Ge0rG
it never went more than an hour!
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, lunch break people won’t approach
-
jonasw
*approve
-
jonasw
wtf is wrong with me
-
pep.
ok so 10:30CEST
-
pep.
In the end
-
jonasw
10:30 CEST on friday, ACK
-
Ge0rG
winfried> Friday I am available between 12:00 and 13:30 CEST
-
jonasw
oh
-
jonasw
welp
-
pep.
hmm
-
jonasw
otherwise, next week same time as today would work for me too
-
winfried
OK, when doing some magic with my schedule, I can be reading from 10:30 but only be (really) active from appr. 11:00
-
pep.
Sure, Mon, Tue workforme
-
Ge0rG
we need to get this settled soon.
-
pep.
Fri I'm not here from 11:45 CEST to ~12:45 CEST
-
jonasw
I blocked friday 10:30 CEST, and I blocked Tue 12:30 CEST, I don’t care which you chose :)
-
pep.
Tue 12:13 CEST is fine by me
-
winfried
Tue wfm (more or less)
-
pep.
What works better?
-
winfried
Tue
-
pep.
Tue when?
-
winfried
after 9:30 CEST
-
pep.
I can do 10:30 CEST again on Tue, or anytime after that
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, 12:30 CEST on Tue?
-
Ge0rG
can do
-
jonasw
then it’s settled
-
winfried
Tuesday 12:30 CEST
- winfried bangs the gavel
-
pep.
:)
-
pep.
what do you call morning btw? if it's not before noon
-
jonasw
hmmm, in german there’s "vormittag", which awkwardly translates to pre-noon.
-
pep.
Ok, I know in quebec they also have this weird notion of early morning and before noon, but in france I've never heard that
-
pep.
(french quebec)
-
jonasw
it’s not particularly weird, considering we have the same for after noon
-
pep.
Sure. Though in usual my mornings are pretty short anyway, so just having one word is fine by me :P
-
winfried
pep.: lol
-
Ge0rG
morning is the time between your first coffee and being awake.
-
winfried
what's in a word!
-
pep.
Ge0rG, can that also include noon?
-
Holger
Ge0rG: So morning == afternoon?
-
jonasw
even more weird are the swedes, where "middag" is both dinner and noon. eftermiddag is only afternoon, but not after dinner.
-
pep.
:D
-
winfried
Ge0rG: that is never in my case, I don't drink coffee and I am never awake :-P
-
Zash
"förmiddag"
-
Ge0rG
winfried: then you have an eternal morning?
-
pep.
I'll try to send the minutes today. And update the wiki after that
-
Zash
the morning that never ends?
- pep. out for lunch
-
jonasw
Zash, do you have a highlight on "swede"?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: welcome in my life ;-)
-
MattJ
jonasw, he has a highlight on "coffee"
-
jonasw
MattJ, that makes sense
-
Ge0rG
A highlight on "highlight"
-
jonasw
is dwd saying "do a PR, because a vote without PR isn’t really useful at all"?
-
jonasw
if so, I find that hard to get from that email :)
-
MattJ
Well, he's not instructing, but... yes
-
MattJ
Voting on "X is a nice idea" and "PR X is good to merge" are different things. But I imagine Ge0rG would rather not work on a PR unless the council indicates it would be in favour of the idea of removing GC1
-
Ge0rG
What MattJ said.
-
Ge0rG
I can only imagine that Dave assumes I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Council process.
-
jonasw
or maybe is confused by your attempts to vote to abolish pidgin ;-)
-
Kev
I don't *think* Dave's mail says that.
-
Kev
I *think* he's just observing that the vote has no practical effect, rather that that it's a bad idea to have the vote.
-
Ge0rG
The practical effect will be that I'll get green lights on preparing a PR, and maybe even some Feedback From The Elders.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: That's not an effect of the vote, though, that's an effect of us discussing it.
-
Ge0rG
Obviously, a Council member could decide to lure me by +1ing the general principle vote and then blocking any follow-up PR, but I don't hope this is going to happen.
-
Kev
I think the vote's a sensible thing to do, as a forcing function for discussion, but it doesn't achive anything that the discussion without out a vote wouldn't.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: there is actually one outcome I'm looking for: Council consensus on removal of GC1.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: if we don't manage to achieve that consensus, I'm not going to prepare a PR.
-
Kev
I think that's very sensible.
-
Ge0rG
Which probably wasn't crystal clear from my e-mail.
-
Kev
And I think a vote as a forcing function on the discussion is sensible, too.
-
Kev
Just that it's not really *necessary*.
-
Ge0rG
Right.
-
Ge0rG
I'm painfully aware that if the vote is accepted, we'll have a second vote on the subject matter of the PR.
-
Ge0rG
Even my mail to standards@ can be used to discuss the motion in the wider community.
-
Kev
I'm against it on the basis of having been reworking M-Link's MUC implementation recently and I implemented and tested GC1 joins :p
-
Kev
(No, I'm not really)
-
Ge0rG
Kev: you have nobody but yourself to blame. I've clearly stated my goal of burning GC1 half a year ago
-
Kev
I'm not opposed in principle, but I do think we should have a story for how to address the 'just fix out of sync' that GC1 currently works for.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: "works"
-
Zash
Kev: It does the opposite of fixing anything.
-
Kev
It's not good, but it *does* work around some things at the moment.
-
Kev
e.g. if you've desynched then at least a presence broadcast means you start getting messages again.
-
Zash
Kev: You'll still be desynced
-
Kev
We should describe how to detect and resolve those cases at the same time as getting rid of GC1.
-
Zash
As in, your view of the participant list may be outdated.
-
Kev
Zash: You will. You'll also be receiving messages.
-
Ge0rG
I think I made multiple proposals back in October.
-
Ge0rG
I could make an even more revolutionary one: let the MUC respond to self-pings by a participant.
-
Zash
Kev: True. Sending a full join bundle would help in that case.
-
Ge0rG
Zash: not quite
-
Zash
Ge0rG: Assuming clients understand "ok, forget everything, here's the current state", which might need adding
-
Ge0rG
Zash: because you'll end up with zombie users in your participant list
-
Ge0rG
Zash: yes. Assuming there is some kind of marker in the stream telling the client when to forget everything from before
-
Ge0rG
which there isn't in the normal join bundle
-
Zash
Correct. So Kev says we should address that.
-
Zash
Returning an error and making the client rejoin does have the same end result tho, at the cost of a roundtrip
-
Ge0rG
Zash: except that most clients suck at rejoining.
-
Ge0rG
Zash: somebody could implement a server-side MUC bouncer that hides all of this from the client.
-
Zash
Ge0rG: *ahem* mod_minimix?
-
Ge0rG
Zash: I don't appreciate that name very much, but yes.
-
Zash
Naming things is hard
-
Ge0rG
Zash: also I had a brief look at the source code and decided not to load it on yax.im
-
Zash
Ge0rG: Sane choice.
-
jonasw
mod_minix -- run a minix inside lua and own all your traffic
-
jonasw
mod_mimimix -- complain about all attempts to join MIXes in the logs
-
Ge0rG
mod_mixtape - play low-quality music whenever somebody joins a mix
-
Zash
Hold on, how do you trick a MUC into subscribing to your presence?
-
Ge0rG
Oh. Hm.
-
Ge0rG
Right, adding a MUC to your roster doesn't imply much.
-
Ge0rG
I wonder what happens if you send a subscription request to a MUC
-
Kev
My concern is that things are bad with desyncs, and we'll make them worse by just stopping doing gc1.
-
Kev
And on a Draft XEP that's not on.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: we'll just make clear how bad it actually is.
-
jonasw
Kev, silently losing messages (what we currently have) is worse than explicitly dropping out of a MUC.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: but I'm open to suggestions how to transition into the new world of awesome MUC without causing regressions
-
Kev
jonasw: And that's not what's on the table.
- Maranda re-read the gdpr thing
-
jonasw
Kev, it’s not?
-
Kev
jonasw: What's on the table is silently losing some messages vs silently losing more messages.
-
jonasw
Kev, no, you don’t *silently* lose more mesasges
-
jonasw
the user and client are aware that they’re losing messages, which isn’t the case with a silent pseudo-resync which happens on accidental GC1.0
-
Ge0rG
are aware that they *were* losing messages,
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, true.
-
Kev
jonasw: But how many existing clients are dealing with whatever behaviour we're moving towards?
-
Maranda
So in the end "user must explicitly give consent to treatment of his/her data by 3rd parties (receiving) when using s2s" is legally covering glad we got to that at least.
-
jonasw
Kev, if the MUC replies with a "kicked" status code, every single one I think.
-
Kev
jonasw: I'm not opposed to fixings, but we do have to be sure we're actually fixing them.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I really dislike "kicked" as opposed to a presence-error
-
Kev
jonasw: Great, so the user isn't getting messages and eventually they might wonder why that tab has gone quiet and look why and see they left 3 days ago.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: because a sane client won't auto-rejoin after being kicked
- Maranda oO(and "who would have told" ™️)
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, kicked + 333 maybe?
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: that's not backward compatible to clients not parsing 333.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’m not sure if clients handle type="error"
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm speaking of "sane" clients.
-
jonasw
Kev, dunno, I’d *expect* clients to tell me that I got kicked out of a MUC.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, me too
-
Anu
so are we discussing MUC or what the new lighter MUC will be
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, have you made a survey how many handle type="error"?
-
jonasw
Anu, MUC
-
Maranda
Anu, uncertain.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: yes. It's better to see after three days that you got kicked than to lose three days worth of discussion and then silently rejoin
-
Anu
ah
-
Kev
Ge0rG: except probably you don't lose 3 days of messages under gc1, because you will have silently kinda rejoined.
-
Ge0rG
Anu: I've stirred some controversy on the standards@ ML
-
Kev
I'm not saying gc1 is a good thing.
-
Kev
Or arguing that it should stay.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: maybe you only rejoined after two days.
-
Kev
I'm just saying that it's not clear that we yet have a story for what happens next.
-
Maranda
And why auto-rejoining is insane?
-
Maranda
🤔
-
Ge0rG
Maranda: it isn't, unless you were just kicked
-
Anu
Group chat (as people expect it) is such a solved problem. In my honest opinion, we should probably spit up the IRC clone from the kind of group chat people use today (which is more of a distribution list)
-
Ge0rG
Anu: yes, but then everybody wanted their favorite feature in and we ended up with MIX
-
Anu
MIX?
-
jonasw
Anu, XEP-0396
-
jonasw
eh
-
jonasw
Anu, XEP-0369
-
Ge0rG
Anu: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0369.html
- Ge0rG playing xep-bot
-
jonasw
good bot Ge0rG
-
Kev
It's MUC with the issues fixed.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: that's the optimistic view.
-
Maranda
-xep 369
-
Bunneh
Maranda: Mediated Information eXchange (MIX) (Standards Track, Experimental, 2018-03-18) See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0369.html
-
Ge0rG
I'm not convinced that MIX actually solves the problem we are talking about (s2s desync). All it provides is some hand-wavy "use MAM"
-
Maranda
-xep 396
-
Bunneh
Maranda: Jingle Encrypted Transports - OMEMO (Standards Track, Experimental, 2017-11-29) See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0396.html
-
Kev
Ge0rG: I think that's right, actually. We do need to get the MAM resync in there.
-
Maranda
:O
-
jonasw
yeah, MIX is in the state of "silent message loss", but with better recovery times than MUC
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: recovery times? I don't see no recovery times in MIX
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, in theory, each message stanza would trigger an s2sout attempt at the MIX side of things.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: so I assume your statement should read "MIX is MUC with additional issues." :P
-
jonasw
which is *probably* better than what happens with MUC-GC1.0-pseudo-resync which only happens when a client happens to update its presence.
-
jonasw
MIX fixes the resource part abuse.
-
Kev
And the long-term join.
- Maranda thinks currently MIX is in the "it'll cause a core meltdown", but he's vaguely biased.
-
Kev
And the multi-client.
-
jonasw
everybody loves core dumps
-
Maranda
Stick a state somewhere in that last sentence
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm not sure this is a real problem. And if it is, I'm not sure that abusing the localpart of the MIX JID to contain two fields is a good solution.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: we can solve multi-client long-term join in MUC without touching a single line of XEP.
-
Maranda
Agreed
-
Kev
I'm quite sure that's not true.
-
Ge0rG
All we need is a bouncer on the user's account that syncs with 0048.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, it doesn’t shake the concept of "same bare JID == same identity", which is good enough for me I think
-
Ge0rG
Or 0402, or whatever.
-
Kev
As long as we have full-JID sharing, iq is going to be broken.
-
jonasw
yeah
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: except in MIX you have a 1:N relationship between identities and JIDs over different MIXes
-
Maranda
Although I'm somehow also sure somehow "bncs" will also be a cause of nuclear meltdowns
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’m not sure that matters much.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: what are the IQ use cases in MUC?
-
Kev
Any time you want to do anything that involves an iq.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, initiating a call with an occupant (not the whole MUC)
-
Kev
So the same as non-MUC.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: and self-references are self-references.
-
Ge0rG
The only IQs I'm actively using are (self)ping and version, and I just made a proposal to fix #1 and I can live with the ambiguity of #2
- Maranda eyes that "Thesis Survey" in jdev@
-
Anu
desync = netsplit ?
-
Ge0rG
Anu: kind of.
-
Ge0rG
Anu: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-October/033501.html has an in-depth explanation
-
Maranda
Ge0rG vcard:temp also
-
jonasw
Maranda, vcard:temp is on the account, not on the occupant✎ -
jonasw
Maranda, vcard:temp is on the account, not on the resource ✏
-
Maranda
And time
-
jonasw
so that’s about the one case where it doesn’t matter in MUC :)
-
Anu
We should all just use EF net and be happy
-
Maranda
What? Hmm is there a difference jonasw?
-
Ge0rG
Maranda: yes, in MUC you query the full JID for the vcard, and it gets routed by the MUC to the account of the participant
-
Kev
jonasw: No, actually, vcard:temp is another example of iq being broken.
-
Kev
Because it should go to the full JID of the occupant, not to their bare JID.
-
jonasw
Kev, wha?
-
jonasw
ITYM the other way round?
-
Kev
So all* MUC implementations have some special casing to detect a vcard and send it to the wrong place (bare JID) instead of the normal routing rules [*probably].
-
Ge0rG
Kev: so there is a viable workaround for that.
-
jonasw
ah, "should" in the sense of "the normal routing rules"
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, so we wanna staple further workarounds onto MUC for every IQ which might ever need to go to the bare JID?
- Maranda is confused with occupant != account muc wise
-
Maranda
Waiting for cell to return ™️
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm sure the incremental overhead is minuscule.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, but the adoption delay?
-
jonasw
and the difficulties for new implementers.
-
jonasw
and of course, the client code which needs to special-case requesting stuff from MUC occupants.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: write it down in 0045.
-
jonasw
you mean like the vcard:temp hack is written down?
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: the special-casing in my client is just in two places :>
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: dunno. I'm not a server author. I'm busy enough keeping 0045 usable for client devs.
-
Maranda
Well iq routing has always been hassle in muc, e.g. who do you send to on ping, version, time etc
-
Ge0rG
a.k.a. not my department.
-
Maranda
In case of shared nick
-
Maranda
😎
-
Ge0rG
Maranda: I suggest "highest priority"
-
Kev
Maranda: Yes, that's one of the things that's fundamentally broken with MUC addressing.
-
Ge0rG
no, "most available"
-
jonasw
I suggest least mobile
-
Maranda
Least mobile 🤔😆
-
Maranda
And no hacks aren't written down e.g. Multi resource nicks
-
Ge0rG
Maranda: PR the XEP!
-
Maranda
Ge0rG I would use someone more literate than myself english wise
-
Maranda
😜
-
Ge0rG
Maranda: just don't plaster it with Emoji :P
-
Holger
#18.1.2 Ghost Users 👻
-
Holger
#5 Roles, Affiliations, and Privileges 😱
-
Maranda
Mobile Chrome even hangs browsing xeps
-
Maranda
🤔
-
Ge0rG
I was going to suggest status code 666 for the Ghost Rider.
-
Ge0rG
Or maybe the GOST Rider. zinid and Andrew would appreciate that.
-
Maranda
666 which in reality is 999
- edhelas propose to ping Ge0rG to check the state of all the MUCs
-
Ge0rG
edhelas: great idea. And then I quit XMPP and everybody's clients go offline
-
edhelas
then I'm adding "Ge0rG MUST stay online" to the XEP
-
Ge0rG
edhelas: I'm not sure you need to write that into the XEP, it might suffice to get a Council vote.
-
Ge0rG
I'll request XSF funding for a multi-homed redundant-hardware HA cluster to run my poezio.
-
Ge0rG
Oh, wait. poezio needs restarts as well. I will request funding to develop a new client written in Erlang.
-
jonasw
Maranda, regarding english literacy, that’s the editors job when in doubt
-
Maranda
😲
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I didn't want to say that, knowing that the editors are pretty busy
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s no reason not to say the truth :)
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: while you are there... I have some pending PRs :D
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I know that
-
jonasw
I have a pending PR mysefl
-
jonasw
but unfortunately, what you were saying is also true ("the editors are pretty busy")