XSF Discussion - 2019-11-02

I think it would be helpful to have more provider at https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Provider_Recommendations

debxwoody, it’s a wiki. you can add servers

Daniel: OK, I will check with the provider and fill the page 👍

(I'm sure I sound grumpy and bitter, but those criteria sound like the page should be renamed to "Conversations server recommendations")

It's not like someone has come forward with a better proposal

Yaxim server recommendations.

There is a yaxim compliance tester.

Would yaxim server recommendations be significantly different is the question

It is difficult to recommend a provider. There are different needs for different people. Keep it open, like "XMPP Provider" and put the important information on top as description and some information within the list. The user can use.

s/use/choose

Daniel [13:24]: > Would yaxim server recommendations be significantly different is the question Generalized, the question should be: what are the XEPs that should be part of a Compliance Suite that can be followed by server operators.

Isn't the 2020 compliance suite and the criteria on that page almost identical?

Maybe somebody should check.

It's Last Call after all!

You started complaining / implying that this is not the case the assumed you did that beforehand

Let's see what's missing. IBR isn't listed in CS, but probably should be added to Core IM. I'm sure that will cause more controversy about closed deployments, but supporting is not the same as enabling it, I suppose.

Supported ≠ Deployed

Oh right you said that.

0065 is required by the Conversations tester, but not in the CS. What should I do with that?

0160 would be a good addition to CS

0384... It's not even a server feature, is it? The Conversations tester is mapping that to what? PEP publishing options?

Yes

Or broken ejabberd configurations

0156 happens absolutely outside of xmpp as it is used. Should that be part of Advanced Web?

How would I add PEP publishing options to the CS?

It isn't part of advanced web yet?

Or basic web even

The above is a list of all differences I've found. Daniel, as the maintainer of the Compliance Tester, I'd absolutely love to hear your recommendations on how to change the CS, on standards@

Not mentioned at all

Also it is for now just an informational test

Same as ibr

But IBR is required in the wiki page

Daniel, I rely on roominfo_occupants, yes. The number on the search is a moving average.

> But IBR is required in the wiki page Is that an unreasonable ask from a list of provider recommendations?

That you can actually sign up?

Does it suppor the thing in IBR where it can give you an URL instead?

Yes

Daniel: not at all. And it's not unreasonable to add IBR to CS. Probably with a remark about spammer accounts and 0157

The provider recommendation thing says that's ok

Daniel: do you have detailed information on how far the uptime measurement bot got / what the reasons for failing were? I'm interested in why yax.im is below 99

I assume it's too cpu loaded to react to all requests within 10s, but data is better than guesses

Kev: is there an exhaustive list of allowed presence annotations for XEP-0310?

Blimey. I'd completely forgotten writing that. That was a long time ago.

Kev: it obviously needs a way to be extended with own-namespace conditions, and neither stanza errors nor stream errors seem an appropriate fill-in.

But it would be nice to have a 0280 hibernated marker.

It would also be nice if somebody from the prosody team implemented it in mod_smacks :D

If you've got a use for it and would like to see it updated, please feel free.

Kev: bummer. The last time I took over authorship of a XEP didn't end well.

.

.

Zash: you know you can just /ping the MUC?

/how does this even work

Ge0rG, does /ping work in Dino?

pep., can you hear me?

Zash: you can make it happen!

Or just use a full featured client.

Or lament on standards@ to make ping required by CS 2020

So many options!