XSF logo XMPP Council - 2017-03-08

  1. moparisthebest has left
  2. moparisthebest has joined
  3. Lance has joined
  4. Lance has left
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. daniel has left
  8. daniel has joined
  9. daniel has left
  10. daniel has joined
  11. jere has joined
  12. Zash has left
  13. jere has left
  14. Zash has left
  15. SamWhited has left
  16. ralphm has left
  17. moparisthebest has joined
  18. daniel has left
  19. daniel has joined
  20. daniel has left
  21. daniel has joined
  22. daniel has left
  23. daniel has joined
  24. Flow has joined
  25. ralphm has left
  26. daniel has left
  27. daniel has joined
  28. Kev has joined
  29. Tobias has left
  30. Tobias has left
  31. daniel has left
  32. daniel has joined
  33. Zash has joined
  34. daniel has left
  35. daniel has joined
  36. daniel has left
  37. daniel has joined
  38. daniel has left
  39. daniel has joined
  40. daniel has left
  41. daniel has joined
  42. jere has joined
  43. jere has left
  44. jere has joined
  45. daniel has left
  46. daniel has joined
  47. daniel has left
  48. daniel has joined
  49. daniel has left
  50. daniel has joined
  51. Tobias has left
  52. Tobias I won't be able to make it to todays council meeting. Would be great if someone else could chair the meeting this time.
  53. jere has left
  54. jere has joined
  55. daniel has left
  56. Tobias or we postpone it to next week if there's nobody else to chair
  57. SamWhited I'll do it
  58. SamWhited Unless someone else wants too; but happy to so that we can have a meeting
  59. Tobias great, ta. Will read the logs tomorrow then.
  60. ralphm has left
  61. jere has left
  62. jere has joined
  63. daniel has left
  64. peter has joined
  65. Flow has joined
  66. Zash has left
  67. Tobias has joined
  68. Zash has joined
  69. Flow has joined
  70. peter has left
  71. Flow has joined
  72. SamWhited The time is come.
  73. SamWhited Who's here?
  74. daniel Me
  75. Link Mauve Me too.
  76. SamWhited I see no Dave
  77. SamWhited But we can muddle through
  78. SamWhited 1. Minutes Taker?
  79. daniel since JC isn't here I can do it
  80. SamWhited perfect
  81. SamWhited 2. Entity Caps 2 ProtoXEP https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/ecaps2.html
  82. SamWhited Any discussion before we vote?
  83. daniel +1
  84. SamWhited I'll be on list
  85. daniel SamWhited, do you think there is something that should be discussed?
  86. daniel regarding just updating entity caps 1?
  87. SamWhited daniel: Not in particular; I still need to read it again, I only briefly scanned it
  88. Link Mauve daniel, whether we accept it as a new XEP or as an update to 0115, mostly.
  89. SamWhited Since 0115 is already in draft and this is radically different in some ways (I think?) I'm inclined to think this needs to be a new XEP personally.
  90. SamWhited But since it's only the three of us, maybe we should save that for list discussion along with the outstanding votes?
  91. daniel ok
  92. Link Mauve I am of the same opinion, other XEPs currently “depending” on 0115 should be updated to say something like “use 0030, or any caching mechanism like ecaps2.”
  93. Kev I maintain that I think a new XEP here is more trouble than it's worth :)
  94. Kev I don't think it's conceptually any different to 115, is it?
  95. Link Mauve It’s not.
  96. SamWhited Let's discuss on list since so many people aren't here. Link Mauve: will you create a thread for this in response to the minutes being sent out?
  97. Link Mauve Ok.
  98. SamWhited Thanks
  99. SamWhited 3. LC for XEP-0333
  100. SamWhited The LC has ended, but I think Daniel wants to submit changes before we vote?
  101. daniel SamWhited, just let it fall out of LC back to experimental again. i need more time than a week or so
  102. SamWhited Will do; moving to the editors column.
  103. daniel i guess we can formally vote -1 if necessary
  104. Link Mauve WFM.
  105. SamWhited If the author (or steward) says it's not ready that sounds like enough to me personally :)
  106. SamWhited 4. Vote on advancing XEP-0233 version 0.5.1 to Draft
  107. Holger has left
  108. SamWhited I'm +1
  109. daniel +1
  110. Link Mauve I’m +1 too.
  111. SamWhited Others to vote on list; excellent.
  112. SamWhited 5. Several PRs relating to CSI/Carbons state after SM resumption
  113. SamWhited https://trello.com/c/IR0c5nfq
  114. SamWhited I think the PRs listed on this card need our attention
  115. SamWhited I'm not sure that there's anything to do but mention that they exist
  116. SamWhited Only the 0198 one needs council, if I understand this correctly
  117. ralphm has left
  118. daniel i'm not sure that's a good idea
  119. SamWhited Which one? Maybe I should have broken this up
  120. daniel by adding that you are basically forcing the carbons ns bump
  121. daniel the one about 0198
  122. daniel by delegating the responsibilty to the individual XEPs you requrie namespace bumps on those xeps
  123. SamWhited I'm unsure if I think it helps or hurts, but I sort of think the 0198 change is unnecessary either way.
  124. daniel i'm not even sure where the idea that a carbon state or a csi state is undefined after a resumption comes from. is it really?
  125. daniel did this ever cause unexpected behaviour in real life?
  126. daniel or a dissagreement between server developers?
  127. Link Mauve This sounds more of a design problem of nonza than something that needs to be specified that way, actually.
  128. SamWhited I'm not sure if it's ever actually caused problems, but I do think it's undefined (and we should probably not leave behavior undefined)
  129. Kev I'm not entirely sure I understand why this is an issue at all.
  130. Kev Sure you're resuming everything in the same state it was in before?
  131. Kev The point of 198 resumption is to pick up where you left off.
  132. Kev *Surely
  133. SamWhited That was always my assumption
  134. daniel but you enable feature X (csi, carbons what ever) for a *stream*. and then you resume a s*stream*
  135. daniel why would that be gone after a resume?
  136. Kev Surely this is a one-line editorial fix in 198 to make this clearer, if it's possible to misread it if you squint hard?
  137. daniel so i don't agree with the notion that this is undefined behaviour
  138. daniel or what Kev that
  139. SamWhited I think I agree with Kev; do we want to vote on the 198 changes in their current form today (even if we're all on list) and then consider an alternative if necessary later?
  140. daniel but it should be up to the carbons or csi xeps
  141. daniel SamWhited, we are talking about #429 right?
  142. daniel just to be sure
  143. SamWhited Yes, sorry
  144. Holger The CSI state has to be reset because the CSI nonzas cannot be acknowledged.
  145. daniel *but it should NOT be up to the (in case that wasn't clear from the context)
  146. Holger So if a CSI nonza was sent before resumption, the client wouldn't know whether the server processed it.
  147. SamWhited ah right, that makes sense
  148. Holger This was the reasoning for resetting the CSI state on resumption.
  149. Zash Is the CSI state attached to the TCP-bound stream or the resource/long lived session?
  150. daniel Holger, but that's an orthogonal problem
  151. moparisthebest how can you *ever* be sure the server got the nonza and enabled CSI though? if you go down that rabbit hole do you just have to continually send it every minute or something?
  152. SamWhited That still sounds like a 1 line change to CSI saying "after resumption, update the state since we're not sure if it stuck"
  153. Link Mauve moparisthebest, the next stanza you send will be acked, and then you know the csi one got sent.
  154. daniel Zash, i think in general CSI applies to the stream. the fact that you can't be sure if the server got the active/inactive is a different problem
  155. daniel that will basically force you to resent it every time
  156. moparisthebest Link Mauve, so then only re-set it after stream resumption if you didn't get an ack for your next message?
  157. SamWhited I thihnk that makes #427 wrong, even though the behavior is correct. It explicitly says that the CSI state is *not* restored: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/427/files
  158. SamWhited If there was a next message at all
  159. Holger moparisthebest: That's completely weirdo.
  160. Holger It must be reset.
  161. daniel SamWhited, yes i think it is wrong
  162. daniel imho
  163. Holger If you don't want that use stanzas instead.
  164. moparisthebest sounds like nonza's in general are completely wierdo Holger :)
  165. SamWhited So, action items thus far:
  166. moparisthebest kinda like using UDP when you want TCP guarantees... anyway
  167. SamWhited 1. Comment on the CSI PR (#427) and say we think it needs work (although it's actually between the author and whomever made the PR)
  168. Holger moparisthebest: They might be the wrong choice for CSI (some argue this way), yes. But as long as we stick to them the CSI state must be reset.
  169. SamWhited Daniel: Can you comment there and mention this, or maybe bring it up for discussion if there's disagreement?
  170. daniel SamWhited, on the #427 one?
  171. SamWhited daniel: yes
  172. daniel yes i can do that
  173. Link Mauve SamWhited, 2. review the CSI discussion for nonza vs. stanza, and potentially switch to stanza?
  174. SamWhited Link Mauve: Yah, that might be where that discussion goes, but for now we can get the quick fix of just tweaking that PR and merging it
  175. Link Mauve Yeah.
  176. SamWhited 2.1: Vote on #429 (even if we're all just on-list)
  177. daniel i'm fine with voting right now. i'm going -1 on that
  178. SamWhited I'm also -1
  179. Link Mauve -1 too.
  180. SamWhited cool, that only leaves #428 from that discussion. Do we actually want (or need) to discuss it?
  181. daniel i think we already did discuss this?
  182. SamWhited Did we? Oops, in that case, we can probably move on.
  183. Link Mauve 428 is basically “this is a stanza, no problem here”.
  184. SamWhited 5 (I think). Add <x/> tag to MUC-PMs: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
  185. SamWhited I do not fully understand this yet, but it appears to bump the carbons version in expectation of that carbons PR being merged
  186. Link Mauve Didn’t we already vote on that last week?
  187. daniel i honestly have no hard feelings either way. I've personally given up on MUC
  188. SamWhited Link Mauve: Did we? I really can't keep track of this stuff, it was just listed in the Trello…
  189. Link Mauve Let me check.
  190. SamWhited oh no, I'm sorry, this does not change the carbons namespace, ignore me.
  191. SamWhited I wasn't even looking at the right PR.
  192. Link Mauve SamWhited, section 2) of the previous minutes.
  193. daniel the thing is that #436 removes one side effect and introduces another
  194. daniel (arguably minor one?)
  195. daniel i actually don't think MUC can be fixed
  196. SamWhited cool, so it's apparently still just missing a few votes. I'll vote on list, apologies for the confusion.
  197. SamWhited Does anyone else want to vote (looks like we didn't vote, just said we'd vote next week)
  198. SamWhited Except for Link Mauve, he's ahead of the game :)
  199. Link Mauve (I just fixed that on trello.)
  200. SamWhited Perfect; official vote. I'm on list. daniel?
  201. daniel i don't know. i'm really torn. i think i should maybe block this... i'll vote on list
  202. SamWhited Alrighty
  203. Zash has left
  204. SamWhited This was put on the agenda, but I'm not sure why: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-February/032328.html
  205. Zash has joined
  206. SamWhited Since we just voted on ecaps2, I guess moving on?
  207. SamWhited Or maybe we are supposed to come up with a migration plan for SHA-1 in general (although it's worth noting that it doesn't really affect anything yet, or XMPP possibly at all)
  208. SamWhited (that's 6. I guess)
  209. SamWhited Let's call it mentioned and move on unless anyone objects
  210. SamWhited I'm hearing crickets.
  211. SamWhited 7. IEEE IoT email
  212. daniel no objections
  213. Link Mauve I have on my TODO list to start reviewing every usage of SHA-1 we have, but haven’t done anything yet.
  214. Link Mauve (Sorry, re 6.)
  215. SamWhited Link Mauve: Perfect, let's call that an action item for you then: SHA-1 review and migration plan. Thanks!
  216. Zash Link Mauve: Like https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html#existing ?
  217. Link Mauve SamWhited, what is this email about?
  218. Link Mauve Zash, right.
  219. SamWhited RE 7: A motly crew of random people got CCed on an email from the IEEE IoT working group (or something) asking us to fast track the IoT XEPs which are currently deferred. Arc apparently had coffee with the person who sent the email, and it was decided that we should probably interact with their WG
  220. SamWhited since they're using XMPP for all IoT things, but don't actually have any XSF members
  221. SamWhited Dave suggested we assign a council liason to the IEEE
  222. Link Mauve Wasn’t that the purpose of the IoT SIG already?
  223. SamWhited and the board requested that we work with Rikard and the IoT SIG to come up with a strategy for the current IoT work
  224. SamWhited yes, I think the idea was just to get council involved.
  225. SamWhited I think since no one's here, we should just send out an email about this and discuss on list, unless anyone wants to suggest a specific plan or volunteer to work with the IoT SIG?
  226. SamWhited Either way I'm happy to write that email
  227. SamWhited Any volunteers?
  228. SamWhited (I'm happy to write the email, I am not volunteering to be the IoT liason)
  229. Link Mauve Didn’t we already elect stpeter as the representative of the council to the SIG?
  230. SamWhited I think we did, but since then Peter has gotten busy and not really involved right now, I don't think we can actually burden him with more work (and he's not on the council)
  231. SamWhited I'll send out an email to council@ and we can discuss specific plans (or we can discuss again next time we're all here). I'm not 100% sure what Dave et al. had in mind, so we can wait for their feedback before addressing this.
  232. SamWhited 8 (maybe). Date of Next
  233. Link Mauve I won’t be here at all next week, fyi.
  234. SamWhited Same time next week?
  235. daniel wfm
  236. SamWhited 2017-03-15 1600Z it is
  237. SamWhited 9. AOB
  238. SamWhited I have some, but it's brief and can be last
  239. daniel i don't have any
  240. Link Mauve Me neither.
  241. SamWhited Cool, mine is just pending vote reminders:
  242. SamWhited XEP-0368 to draft: Link Mauve, SASL2: Link Mauve, IBR2: Link Mauve, Daniel. Please vote; thanks!
  243. SamWhited *gavel*
  244. Link Mauve Thank you.
  245. SamWhited Thanks everybody
  246. daniel thank you
  247. moparisthebest I think XEP-0368 to draft times out to day anyway
  248. moparisthebest I think XEP-0368 to draft times out today anyway
  249. SamWhited yah, I thihnk you're right
  250. SamWhited Link Mauve: You have until EOB central time when I'm going to put my editor hat on and call it :)
  251. moparisthebest or times in, but that sounds odd
  252. Link Mauve Alright, I’ll take a few more minutes off work to handle that then!
  253. moparisthebest now that meeting is over, so Holger what I'm asking is with a nonza how can I be sure the server *ever* got it, even not counting stream resumption now?
  254. Holger moparisthebest: You have this guarantee (as Link Mauve or someone mentioned): https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html#in-order-processing
  255. Holger moparisthebest: You no longer have that if the stream is resumed after sending a CSI element and before a following stanza was acknowledged by the server.
  256. moparisthebest so then as horrible as it sounds, why not mark csi as 'acked' in the client when you recieve the next 'ack' for your next stanza?
  257. SamWhited Link Mauve: Thanks! Don't forget the 0115/ecaps2 email too (not that that has to happen right away). Also reminder to me: I'm going to go draft one about the IEEE IoT stuff.
  258. moparisthebest right
  259. Holger moparisthebest: The server would have to know whether the client has marked this as 'acked' in order to decide whether to reset the CSI state :-)
  260. Link Mauve SamWhited, ok.
  261. moparisthebest but yea in general, nonzas sound like they are useful for here is this but I don't care whether you get it or not, and not in any way appropriate for modifying state on either side, or keeping state in sync
  262. Holger moparisthebest: Just reset it or use stanzas. I agree that resetting the state doesn't feel elegant, but I think that's a purely academic issue, I don't see the problem in practice. If protocol elegance is what you're after, you should not be doing XMPP :-)
  263. moparisthebest so what your saying is we should all re-invent the wheel with our own json over http protocols?
  264. moparisthebest so what you're saying is we should all re-invent the wheel with our own json over http protocols?
  265. Holger If you want elegance, yes. I find compatibility way more important, which is why I'm doing XMPP rather than Matrix.
  266. moparisthebest what is the history for using a nonza there in the first place?
  267. moparisthebest I feel like I'm missing some context
  268. SamWhited I think it just makes sense; it's a thing you only ever need to send to the server, so it doesn't need to be routable, and it's not mission critical, so fire-and-forget is fine.
  269. SamWhited It matches the nonza use case perfectly, I think.
  270. moparisthebest it modifies state though? and is mission critical if your mission is please don't murder my phone battery
  271. Holger moparisthebest: Find a room where both Ge0rg and Flow are joined, prepare yourself with some popcorn, mention the topic, and you'll have the context.
  272. Zash Holger: What have you done!
  273. moparisthebest I'll wait for flow to join prosody and have at it haha
  274. Kev SamWhited: Actually, I think it's telling the server to do something on your behalf, so an iq to your bare JID (no to=) is probably pretty sensible too.
  275. Kev Stanzas are the building blocks of XMPP. Investing new top level elements is possible, of course, but there are implications (see the current discussion on interactions with 198).
  276. SamWhited Kev: Yah, that makes sense too, I just don't see the need for an ack, and I like it when things aren't routable.
  277. Kev I don't know what my opinion was in the past, but right now I think my opinion is largely that this should have been an iq.
  278. Holger I agree, but I'm not sure switching to stanzas now is worth the trouble.
  279. Kev I think 'not routable' isn't really much of an argument. If it's an iq to your bare JID, your server already understands how to deal with it. If it's a new element type, that means new code paths (probably, maybe, potentially, depending on server design).
  280. SamWhited If it is routable, but not intended for anyone else but the server, that's a chance for an XMPP library to break in unexpected ways
  281. SamWhited (to break in unexpected ways when I try to send them a CSI IQ even though technically they shouldn't ever get one as a client, for instance)
  282. SamWhited I generally just like keeping the scope of things as limited as possible
  283. SamWhited But I agree, it's not likely to be an issue in this case
  284. Holger CSI elements don't need to be routed but I do see need for an ACK, so we don't have a perfect fit for this.
  285. Kev SamWhited: I don't buy that, really. Receiving stuff you don't expect is kinda a core part of extensibility.
  286. SamWhited Yah, but that doesn't mean we can't limit that possibility on the server as much as possible if it doesn't cause any other problems
  287. SamWhited Which I think it doesn't in this case, but obviously others disagree
  288. moparisthebest good call Holger , that's a perfect fit for a nostanza
  289. moparisthebest which doesn't get routed, but does get ACKd
  290. Holger Given limited manpower, I think we should try to distinguish between real problems and cosmetic issues and concentrate on the former as long as we have those :-)
  291. moparisthebest nonstanza maybe, I'm not married to the name, everyone wants a new top level element right? :P
  292. moparisthebest but yea about the issue at hand it seems fairly clear CSI needs to be a stanza, or re-sent on session resumption if something didn't get acked after it was sent before, or something, yuck
  293. moparisthebest or you just re-send it on every session resumption and call it a day
  294. Kev FWIW, I don't think there'd be significant pain in migrating to iqs instead of non-stanza elements.
  295. Holger I'd rather avoid spamming the code of implementations with both solutions for no good reason.
  296. Lance has joined
  297. Kev I think that's fair.
  298. Kev It's Experimental though, right? :)
  299. Holger I'm in the Council room so I was expecting this response :-)
  300. SamWhited Yah, but it's one of those experimental XEPs that we left until everyone was using it; at that point it's practically defacto draft and we should be careful with changes, I think (I'm not saying we should treat it exactly like draft, but we should be careful not to leave stuff in experimental this long until it's so widely used)
  301. Holger Yes looking at such issues from a practical perspective rather than blindly applying formal rules sounds like a great idea to me :-)
  302. Holger goes AFK and therefore stops trolling, have a nice evening everyone.
  303. Holger has left
  304. Kev I think a line saying "Look, this should have been a stanza (take note future authors), but it's not, so we need to reset it on a new stream just in case" is probably not daft.
  305. SamWhited Yah, I don't think that would be a problem
  306. SamWhited Although I also disagree that it should have been a stanza; but mentioning that you may need to send it again on stream restart seems fine.
  307. Kev I think that this discussion shows that in practical terms pretty much everything needs to be a stanza, so that 198 works.
  308. SamWhited 198 does work; if the server got the CSI thing, then the stream state will remain the same and no reset is necessary. If it didn't, then it's exactly the same as if it didn't get it and the stream wasn't resumed: the state just never got changed (which I think is fine in this case)
  309. daniel SamWhited, +1
  310. Kev Yes, it works in the sense of it will not be broken.
  311. Kev But in terms of you needing to resend it after a restart because you don't know whether it was received isn't exactly 'working'.
  312. jere has left
  313. jere has joined
  314. SamWhited I just don't think that's a problem; however, if it is, the fix is easy: just always send it after a restart. I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't think it's a problem. It's an easy fix.
  315. Kev Changing to something much less bikesheddish:
  316. Kev https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436/commits/cde2abe151ac8ecaacf46ad5d0cc43caae5b9a62
  317. Kev Surely we can't merge that?
  318. Kev It renders existing implementations non-compliant, and poses a potential interop problem.
  319. daniel you said *less* bikesheddish?
  320. SamWhited It is a SHOULD, not a MUST (but I'm leaning that way too)
  321. Kev Yes, this is a real issue, rather than cosmetic.
  322. Kev SamWhited: A SHOULD means you can rely on it, pretty much, because anyone not doing it made a deliberate decision.
  323. SamWhited Kev: What I heard there is "you can't rely on it" :)
  324. Kev SamWhited: Then it should be MAY.
  325. daniel we could just bump the muc namespace :-)
  326. Kev SHOULD means you can rely on it.
  327. Kev At the least it needs text saying that while a service/client SHOULD attach it, receiving entities can't assume that it'll be present, because $REASONS.
  328. Kev If we really do want to make it either SHOULD or MUST without further explanation, then yes, you're needing a namespace bump.
  329. Kev I suggest a namespace bump would be ludicrously stupid, and instead we need wording that doesn't introduce interop concerns.
  330. SamWhited yah, I agree; if it requires a namespace bump I'm absolutely -1
  331. SamWhited But I'm also fairly convinced that we should take MUC out behind the chemical shed and shoot it (and by that I meant that MUC is always going to be a bad experience, and there is nothing we can do about it, so we shouldn't bother)
  332. SamWhited But we definitely shouldn't make it *worse* (which a namespace bump would do)
  333. Kev I think that an additional sentence saying something approximately "Note that this requirement was added late in MUC's life, when implementations were already stable, and thus clients MUST NOT rely on receiving this element".
  334. Kev would probably be sufficient to get this text in there, while not breaking anything.
  335. SamWhited yah, that seems sane
  336. daniel i think everyone (including the author of the PR) will probably be fine with MAY
  337. SamWhited or that
  338. Kev MAY would not introduce an interop concern, so I'm far less opposed to it.
  339. Kev But I think better would be to make it clear that it's a good idea to do it.
  340. daniel can someone create a comment on the PR basically pasting the last couple of lines
  341. daniel because i really agree with SamWhited that MUC needs to die already and we shouldn't spend hours discussing these things
  342. SamWhited (I can't copy/paste easily from mcabber or I would)
  343. daniel :-)
  344. Kev I suggest someone Council does it, but I'll do it if not.
  345. daniel ok i'll do it
  346. Kev Thanks.
  347. Kev I think my suggested text is the best option, but I'm far fewer Fs about that than about not merging the PR as-is.
  348. daniel has left
  349. daniel has left
  350. Holger has left
  351. daniel has left
  352. Kev has left
  353. daniel has left
  354. Lance has left
  355. daniel has left
  356. Lance has joined
  357. daniel has left
  358. daniel has left
  359. daniel has left
  360. Tobias has left
  361. daniel has left
  362. daniel has left
  363. daniel has left
  364. daniel has left
  365. daniel has left
  366. daniel has left
  367. Lance has left
  368. daniel has left
  369. daniel has left
  370. daniel has left
  371. daniel has left
  372. daniel has left
  373. daniel has left
  374. Lance has joined
  375. daniel has left
  376. daniel has left
  377. daniel has left
  378. moparisthebest has joined
  379. Tobias has left
  380. moparisthebest has left
  381. moparisthebest has joined
  382. moparisthebest has joined
  383. moparisthebest has joined
  384. SamWhited has left
  385. daniel has left
  386. jere has joined