moparisthebestThere are pending protoxeps but maybe too late
KevIf those didn't make it onto an agenda, I guess next week for them.
Link MauveYes, we do have https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/765
zinidjust in case you also have: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-cir.html
dwdYeah, no agenda, sorry - things are a bit mad for me at work currently.
KevI've been completely swamped for the last few weeks.
KevI have at least got out votes for the meeting two weeks ago just before they expire.
jonas’it is reassuring that we’re all being swamped at the same time at least
jonas’hasn’t been much better for me either, as you can probably guess by the editor latencies
zinidthe council is swamped, okay
Link MauveI’ve also been both swamped, and got my main laptop stolen. :x
KevOh, that's sucky.
Link MauveI do have backups, but I need to get a new one asap.
Link MauveAnd also a new passport.
jonas’Link Mauve, ouchie
dwdOh, that does suck, indeed.
dwdSo, anyway:
dwd1) Roll Call
KevHere.
dwdLink Mauve and jonas’ I assume are here - Ge0rG?
jonas’I am
dwdWell, we'll move on.
dwd2) Agenda Bashing
dwdI see two ProtoXEPs, and nothing else.
jonas’I haven’t checked the editor inbox in the last 7 days, unfortunately.
jonas’(mostly)
dwdI'm perfectly happy to get the two ProtoXEPs onto this meeting's agenda so we can at least hope to get them through quickly, even if many of us are on-list.
jonas’I agree with that
KevI think everyone onlisting is something to be avoided, and we should be aiming not to add things to the agenda during the meeting. But, majority rule.
dwdOh, and Jingle Message Initiation has been requested to move to Draft.
Link MauveSo a last call?
dwdKev, yes, but all these things have been posted to the standards@ list, so it's entirely our fault.
jonas’Kev, we could discuss this particular point in AOB, I have opinions on that.
jonas’dwd, they have been posted last night though, I can see his point ;-)
Kevdwd: I used to monitor the calls, but since we get agendas in advance, these days I just wait for the agendas to come in.
dwd3) Items for a vote
dwdKev, I find your faith in me worrying.
dwda) E2E Authentication in XMPP: Certificate Issuance and Revocation
dwdhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-cir.html
KevWell, if we rely on everyone working out what the agenda will be, there's little point sending out agendas :)
KevOn-list.
jonas’on-list, obviously
Link MauveOn-list too.
dwdI think I'm tentatively +1. Seems in-scope.
jonas’oooh
jonas’ooooh
jonas’(that’s for the anticipated (b))
dwdWhat?
dwdOh.
jonas’I was just reading XEP-0001 regarding the next one
dwdb) DNS Queries over XMPP (DoX)
dwdhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dox.html
KevThis was an 1stApril wasn't it?
jonas’this should’ve been on the humorous track
jonas’and not ever reached council
jonas’according to '0001
jonas’I’m getting a call
KevThey're not meant to reach us, indeed.
dwdI genuinely do not know if this one is April 1 or not. But yes, I agree it's out of our scope.
dwdjonas’, People call you about these things now? :-)
Link MauveThere have been people voicing concern that this isn’t any more humorous than the HTTP version.
Link MauveAnd could even be more useful.
dwdjonas’, If it *is* intended to be a joke - and I thought DoH was originally - then it's of the wrong Type.
jonas’dwd, yes
jonas’it is
jonas’> I would humbly suggest this might be accepted as a XEP on the first of next month, if council approves. ;)
from https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/765
jonas’I messed that one up
dwdAh-ha.
dwdNo worries. We'll skip that then.
jonas’spoiling the fun though
jonas’to the minute-taker, please omit the discussion about (b) :)
KevLet's ...
Kevright, that.
moparisthebestpersonally, I'd prefer it not be humorous track, but also released april 1st :)
moparisthebestdon't know who ends up making that decision, just that it's not me
jonas’moparisthebest, in the end, it’s you
dwdc) XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
Link MauveYou as the author makes the decision on which track to go through.
jonas’if you say you actually want this on Standards Track and not Humorous...
moparisthebestit's no more or less serious than DoH, which is a real RFC :)
dwdOh, wait, are we going to consider this one properly then?
jonas’I’m afraid so
lnjhas left
debaclehas left
dwdOh. So I'll +1 DoX if you want it on Standards Track, but I'm going to be leaning on you very heavily to get some Security Considerations in place about privacy.
KevI'll on-list it, but I'm very much opposed to publishing on April 1st if it's not meant to be humorous.
moparisthebestI *mostly* copied them directly from Security Considerations on the DoH RFC, but yes I agree privacy stuff should be added
dwdKev, You can engineer that, of course...
dwdOK, jonas’, Link Mauve - since we're actually voting, are you two also going on-list?
Link MauveYes, I will be.
Link MauveLeaning towards +1 because it’s a valid usecase and seems properly written.
dwdjonas’?
dwdI'll assume he's trapped on the phone and will on-list.
dwdSo back to:
dwdc) XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation
dwdAndrew asked for this to be advanced to Draft, so we'd need to vote for Last Call.
Link MauveIs there any author available to issue the last call?
KevNow we're only allowed to if we determine it's abandoned.
jonas’dwd, sorry, I’m on call and got a page, that’s what I meant to say earlier
jonas’I’m on-list, defaulting to -1 otherwise.
jonas’regarding (b)
jonas’regarding (c), nothing wrong with LC I think
Kev(For those not following, a recent change was made by Board to XEP1 to change it from Council being allowed to issue an LC whenever it wanted, irrespective of who asked, to only being able to issue one if an author asks, unless the authors have abandoned the XEP)
dwdI'll follow-up with Andrew to see if he's willing to gether and process feedback, then.
KevSo I think we're obliged to contact Peter and Philip and ask if they've abandoned it.✎
KevSo I think we're obliged to contact Peter and Philipp and ask if they've abandoned it. ✏
dwdI'll do so.
KevTa.
dwd4) AOB
dwdI know jonas’ had some aboutt agendums, but I assume that can wait and/or be discussed on the Council list.
dwdAnyone else?
KevNewp.
dwd5) Next Meeting
Link Mauve+1W?
dwdSame time next week?
dwdThat's Wednesday 20th March, 1600 UTC.
dwd6) Ite, Meeting Est
dwdThanks all.
KevI don't currently have anything stopping me, but the way things have been recently... yeah.
dwdKev, I know that feeling and truly sympathize.
moparisthebestKev, so it's as-useful as DoH but with better performance (less RTTs), and has implementations that work, which is why I want Standards Track, but also like DoH it's a flagrant layer violation so I just thought it'd be funny to release on April 1st and have people forever more wondering "wait, is this a joke or not?"
moparisthebestbut I can have an odd sense of humor, I'm not married to the idea :P
jonas’people wondering about a spec being a joke or not is generally not good for UX
moparisthebestjonas’, curious as to the default to -1, but if you are going to bring it up on list I can wait to discuss there too
jonas’moparisthebest, I don’t think either of DoH or DoX is a good idea
jonas’but I’m going to read the rationale and be convinced otherwise
moparisthebestwell I can tell you right now if you don't like DoH you won't like DoX, they are for all intents and purposes identical
Holgerhas left
zinidwhat purpose? browsers need this hack because they need to resolve, and an XMPP client doesn't need to resolve anything
zinidnot sure if trolling...
moparisthebestif anything an XMPP client needs to resolve much more? don't some resolvers still break on SRV etc
zinidit needs to resolve that to open the stream
ZashHTTP upload eg
moparisthebestnot if it's hard-coded, like any DNS resolver will have to be
jonas’moparisthebest, you don’t need to hard code DNS resolvers
jonas’you learn them via DHCP or system configuration
zinidZash, isn't what an HTTP library should do?
moparisthebestand those are the ones that don't do SRV properly, or mangle responses etc, read DNS-over-TLS and DoH spec for all those reasons
moparisthebestthat's just not true anymore jonas’ , android 9 hardcodes a DNS-over-TLS by default now, browsers hard-code DoH addresses etc
zinidand we need that insanity in XMPP too?
jonas’moparisthebest, yes, because they suck
moparisthebestof course, we are forever trying to catch up to HTTP browser levels of insanity
zinidso far that's not we but you 🙂
moparisthebestso, you are a XMPP client, you ask your resolver for SRV records, it returns an error, then what?
moparisthebestit could fall back to connecting to a known/public "resolver xmpp account" and resolving that way
zinidyou try A record?
moparisthebestok so if that fails then
moparisthebestthat's one perfectly valid usecase, another is your router staying connected via XMPP and resolving DNS for your network
zinidvalid use case in what situation?
moparisthebestmy router currently resolves DNS over DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-HTTPS, both over tor, and the constant TLS setup/teardown adds quite a bit of overhead that wouldn't exist with DoX
zinidwhen resolver doesn't work, but internet does?
moparisthebestthat's 2 usecases I can think up right now
Kev1.3 to the rescue?
moparisthebestzinid, yep, that happens often
zinidmoparisthebest, I don't think often enough to address the problem using stupid hacks
moparisthebestwasn't Ge0rG just complaining the other day that a large % of clients couldn't resolve SRV records?
zinidI don't like this attitude to degrade the tech because of amateur developers
zinidit's not how the industry is progressing
moparisthebestwhere do amateur developers come in?
zinidyou cannot degrade medicine or particle physics
zinidto fit idiots in there
moparisthebestthe SRV record thing is bad dns resolvers that haven't been upgraded in 20 years
moparisthebestand/or bad ISPs or countries that block them
Zashand the web doesn't use SRV, so who cares
ziniduse A records?
moparisthebestexactly
zinidstill better than DoXYZ
moparisthebestzinid, port 5222 is blocked too
zinidand how DoX will help with blocked ports?
moparisthebestmaybe we should just make XMPP connect to port 443 on the A record via TLS as a fallback :)
ziniduse 443, we already have this insanity
moparisthebestbecause DoX gets you the SRV records that can point to alternate ports?
zinidand then they will block your ALPN?
zinidwhat will do next?
zinidlooks like an arm race
moparisthebestwell, we have encrypted SNI now, so encrypt ALPN using the same setup? :P
moparisthebestit's absolutely an arms race
zinidbut why would we need to accept the race? what's the point?
moparisthebestend goal being have everything encrypted and unblockable
moparisthebestthen $they find new ways to block, and $we find new ways around those, forever
zinidwhich means everything is resolved via a single 1.2.3.4 using TLS on 443?
zinidthat's what we're going to do
moparisthebestyea, that's already the case basically
dwdFWIW, I do think DoX is insane, but so is DoH. Question for me is whether DoX is better being redirected to IETF, thinking about it, if i's a serious proposal.
zinidI disagree of course, it's not the case
moparisthebestat least things brings in the possibility for more diversity in resolvers
zinidmoparisthebest, there will no be diversity, there will be 1.2.3.4 TLS on 443
moparisthebestzinid, it is the case, android 9 ships by default with all DNS going to google over TLS
zinidand?
moparisthebestbrowsers already ship with DoH capability
zinidso why we need DoX?
moparisthebestonly a short matter of time before they turn on by default
moparisthebestdwd, I agree with you, DoX is equal in it's insanity to DoH, no more, no less :)
moparisthebestboth have use cases, both a bit crazy, but use cases nonetheless
dwdmoparisthebest, The main use case being having someone like Google get all your DNS lookup data.
zinidyeah, I personally don't care whether it will be Google or moparisthebest.com, both are crap
moparisthebestrun your own?
zinidwe should not move that road
jonas’moparisthebest, I already run my own. On port 53.
zinidmoparisthebest, why? I have everything working
moparisthebestand every *other* network you go on intercepts that and sends you whatever it feels like jonas’
jonas’moparisthebest, so? I have dnssec for that.
zinidand I don't want to run my own, that's also insane
jonas’it can’t, too, because my resolver runs on 127.0.0.1
moparisthebestoh so then they just DOS you?
jonas’I wanna see them intercept /that/
moparisthebestDNSSEC solves a different set of problems
jonas’they can DOS me already if they block TCP or UDP or whatever
moparisthebestprivacy etc for instance is not addressed by DNSSEC
jonas’yeah
jonas’I can personally live with that. and if others can’t, we should solve this in DNS, not by stacking layers over layers for no good reason.
moparisthebesttake it up with the IETF, they decided it was a great idea
KevSurely DoX should be using DoH at the other end anyway, because the resolver the DoX box is using might have SRV blocked?
jonas’moparisthebest, some people under the umbrella of the IETF thought htat
jonas’that’s a difference.
moparisthebestit's probably too late though, since most devices will be using it soon enough
jonas’maybe I should switch trades and learn something which isn’t being botched awfully
zinidjonas’, for example what? 🙂
moparisthebestha I've often thought about that :P
jonas’zinid, I don’t know
zinidI think every other industry is polluted by this shit
jonas’anything which has settled more than IT has
zinidmaybe academics, but it's totally biased, full of ad hominem and groupthinking
ZashEvery other industry isn't 50 years old
jonas’isn’t *just*
moparisthebestsustenance farming
ZashPotato farming, in the woods?
moparisthebestsure
moparisthebestKev, the resolver I'm running currently upstreams to random DNS-over-TLS servers, but someone is writing a prosody module now to go dox -> doh >:)
zinidjonas’, probably to switch the IT niche, but it will be very marginal, if you try to up your head a bit you get it into Google shit 🙁
lnjhas joined
jonas’yeah, layer 1 through 3 are nice
moparisthebestjonas’, let me tell you about QUIC
zinidoh yes, QUIC...
jonas’moparisthebest, that’s above layer 3
ZashA dream of SCTP :(
zinidsuddenly they found out that it takes time to adopt SCTP, so let's do everything at layer3 !!!
zinidfaster!!!
jonas’layer 3 isn’t going to change anymore, look at how long it takes to deploy v6 ;-)
jonas’what?
jonas’I’ll just leave now, this isn’t good for my mental health
zinidapplication layer
jonas’application is 7 or something
jonas’don’t scare me like that, zinid
zinidin OSI?
jonas’yeah
zinidokay
jonas’3 is IP
zinidyeah, probably
jonas’don’t scare me like that
jonas’I treasure layer 3 as my refuge where I go when I feel sad.
moparisthebestbut uh, many (most?) middle boxes block any IP that isn't UDP or TCP so....
jonas’moparisthebest, that’s layer 4
jonas’UDP and TCP aren’t IPs
moparisthebestwhich is why QUIC is over UDP, not IP
jonas’QUIC is over UDP is over IP
ZashA dream of IPSec, but we got TLS instead :(
moparisthebesttl;dr layers don't matter anymore, forget everything you knew about them
jonas’Zash, IPsec is a horrible mess though
jonas’moparisthebest, they do matter, up to and including 3
jonas’which is why I say 1-3 are sane, everything above is madness
Zashjonas’: And TLS ain't?
jonas’Zash, point taken
moparisthebestyou can't do anything with IP though, other than UDP or TCP is what I mean jonas’
ZashTLS seems to have taken on the role of IPSec
jonas’moparisthebest, working on the infrasturcture which allows UDP and TCP to flow is fun enough and enough "doing something with it"
zinidjonas’, I'm told OSI is a horrible mess, but I don't think it was that bad, in comparison with what we ended up
zinidwhere we don't have layers anymore
zinidtotal leak of abstractions from layers to layers back and forth
moparisthebestanyone complain about that with that XMPP SASL thing that needs TLS info? :P
zinidsure, I complained
zinidI can find the complaint in the ML if you like
moparisthebestbasically, layer violations are bad unless they give you something good and then they are good
zinidah, those good intentions
zinidI bet DoH people had good intentions
zinidor maybe it was just Google assasins?
zinidanyway, the major threat will be of course CDNs, not DoH or DoX will help you because you won't be able to do peer-to-peer connections anymore
zinidmoparisthebest, routers are being replaced by CDNs, google builds farms of CDNs connected via private channels, and ISPs almost don't invest into cables anymore
jonas’moparisthebest, IPv6 deployment requires ICMP6, for path MTU discovery.
moparisthebestlots of networks block it though, and it seems to work... but I know what you mean
zinidso *I* think the future of the internet is your "last mile" ISP connected to a CDN
zinidso yeah, the industry is fucked up
moparisthebestI really don't know what you mean by CDNs replacing routers though
ZashLike Google Global Cacehe?
moparisthebestthere is a lot of effort towards meshnets too, bypassing all this "internet" crap :P
zinidmoparisthebest, how will you bypass the crap when your ISP is connected to google cdn directly and routes nothing?
zinidthere will be no routers, ISP is a last mile for your phone
zinidthen goes Google with CDN
moparisthebestare you saying it blocks everything but google? seems pretty far fetched, hopefully
zinidno
zinidit doesn't block anything, there ARE NOT anything except Google CDN server
zinidthere is a nice research paper showing the situation
jonas’I really should’ve left
moparisthebestI can't quite imagine a dystopia where that happens yet
zinidI thought the same, but now we have DoH 😀
moparisthebestif anything that's anti-centralization, gives you a choice
moparisthebestwith dns-over-tcp/udp you only have 1 choice, because your router/isp hi-jacks it and returns whatever they want
moparisthebestover TLS, you can connect wherever you choose
moparisthebestthat goes for DoT, DoH, and DoX
zinidyeah, good luck trying to beat it with the technology 🙂
moparisthebestit's all I have
ralphmThe problem with SCTP is mostly middleboxes.
zinidgiven that ISP have no zero incentives to build new routes, because 80% is routed to FAANG, why care?
moparisthebestfew have the resources of google/amazon/apple/etc so all we have is tech to battle with
zinid*have now
zinidmoparisthebest, especially when they now define tech
ralphmI.e. you not only have to support at the edges, but on each possible route between endpoints
zinidyeah, same problem as IPv6 basically
moparisthebestthat's why QUIC is over UDP instead of IP
moparisthebestthey've essentially said "fuck it, impossible" to making new IP-based protocols
ralphmEven though I too have the same thing about crossing OSI layers, I appreciate the practical thinking here.
zinidI'm not convinced it's practical, at least no urgency, so better to define a strategy on moving to SCTP
zinidreally, what urgency?
zinidI don't buy efficiency, because the application layer protocols are already horribly inefficient
moparisthebestthere is the "ideal" way which most people generally agree on, but might be impossible to achieve practically
moparisthebestthen there is the "a bit crappy but works" way which can be used *now*
moparisthebestbalancing them is rough
zinid*now* is a good argument in the case of IPv4, because the address space is over
zinidbut with TCP?
zinidbtw, just in case, you can incapsulate SCTP into UDP, there is even an RFC for this
moparisthebestQUIC doesn't replace TCP, it replaces TCP+TLS
moparisthebestI think the main benefits are reduced RTTs, and eliminating head-of-line blocking
moparisthebestI'm sure there are more
zinidyeah, reduce RTT in order to download bloated JS pages
moparisthebestsoon bloated WASM pages :D
zinidsoon?
moparisthebestgotta keep up
SouLhas joined
ralphmmoparisthebest: indeed, you can get to 0 round-trips for known endpoints.
ralphmmoparisthebest: another interesting one is that you can keep a connection even if your IP changes (e.g. when switching between cellular and wifi)
moparisthebestah right that's handy too
ralphmThere are also some benefits regarding how QUIC packets are encrypted and authenticated
ralphmThis is an interesting piece: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-joseph-quic-comparison-quic-sctp-00
ralphmAlthough I'm sure it is not up-to-date with the latest, this gives some more details of why it trumps SCTP and/or TCP in various areas.
moparisthebestso, XMPP-over-QUIC would mean you could do away with Stream Management I think?
ralphmOne other thing I found interesting is that, compared to Google QUIC, they tweaked IETF QUIC headers to allow for multiplexing with STUN/TURN/etc on the same port. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-03
ralphmmoparisthebest: yes
ralphmand starttls
ralphm(as TLS 1.3 is baked into QUIC)
moparisthebestincoming XEP-0368v2: SRV records for XMPP over QUIC
moparisthebesthehehe
ralphmI suppose you can just use _xmpp-client._udp for this
zinidI'll probably off this boat
ralphmzinid: at least read that comparison draft I linked. You might find it interesting to know why people have bothered with QUIC.
zinidralphm, I read it before obviously
zinidand it mostly describes how cool QUIC is
moparisthebestbut, old google QUIC or new IETF QUIC because quite different
zinidI have no incentive to implement QUIC, I have no practical problems with TCP, and note that I manage highload with millions of connections
zinidI think this is related to Google grade clusters
zinidand others just swallow it
moparisthebestsure if you ignore all the *other* benefits I guess
zinidRTT is not a problem for me at all
moparisthebestit's certainly not about "handling more connections"
zinidmoparisthebest, I still think it's not a worth to ruin everything and rebuilding from scratch
dwdhas left
zinidand putting packets framing into user land
ralphmzinid: I don't think it is ruining everything.
zinidokay, but I do
zinidso I said I'll implement this the latest
zinidwhen customers and users will jump on my head
moparisthebestthings change, when TCP was invented, people switching IPs regularly mid-stream was not-a-thing, now *most* computers do this
ralphmRTT is definitely an issue when you establish many connections and/or in non-reliable networks. The latter is especially true in mobile context.
zinidmoparisthebest, but this is solved by SCTP
zinidso far the only somewhat valid arguments I hear is all SCTP can do as well
ralphmIf you work in an office, then take the elevator to the ground floor, stopping on a few floors, exit the building, how often do you think you switch networks?
moparisthebestSCTP is impossible to get on the internet, it's over
zinidmoparisthebest, internet is over
ralphmThere's so much ossification in existing networks that deploying SCTP in a meaningful way is a non-starter. This is not fatalistic, just realistic.
zinidralphm, I switch the networks everytime, I don't feel discomfort, stream management works for me
moparisthebestok, now implement that for all other network connections
moparisthebestor, just once, in QUIC
ralphmIt does, but there's latency involved due to roundtrips. With QUIC you might achieve 0 RTT to resume.
zinidralphm, what latency? 1 sec vs 0.1 sec?
zinidI'm fine with that
moparisthebestmight be 30 seconds
zinidand might be an hour, sure
ralphmIf someone writes a QUIC library, putting XMPP on top should not be hard
moparisthebestbut if you don't want change why are you using this new fancy XMPP stuff, SMTP works fine for messaging
moparisthebestalso manage your servers via telnet
ralphmzinid: well, I looked at networks in developing nations, and things aren't that bright.
zinidokay, so why we cannot incapsulate SCTP into UDP once again?
zinidthere is an RFC
moparisthebestlook at you trying to re-invent QUIC here
moparisthebest>:)
ralphmWhy would that be better than QUIC, which actually has a lot traction?
zinidmoparisthebest, but that RFC was before QUIC, so who is reinventing?
ralphmBut is it better?
ziniddepends on what is better and for whom?
ralphmFor getting to a place where people can benefit from its properties. Not just theoretically, but in practice.
zinidI see 😀
moparisthebestplus it doesn't bundle TLS which is a huge benefit, for RTTs and other things
zinidmoparisthebest, regarding telnet and smtp: why aren't you going to matrix?
ralphmI'm happy for Matrix to exist. They have different ideas. We'll see how that works out.
moparisthebestI like XMPP better so far
moparisthebestseems good enough at adapting to new tech too
ralphmmoparisthebest: I hear that often around these parts 🤣
zinidmoparisthebest, yeah good answer 🙂
zinidso I said like 100 posts above I like TCP so far 🙂
ralphmzinid: good, but that doesn't mean QUIC is useless, does it?
zinidralphm, obviously anything is useful for something
moparisthebestI guess that's even one of the great advantages zinid , when my clients are all connected to my server over QUIC and you are connected via TCP, we'll still be able to talk :D
zinidfor someone
moparisthebest<3 XMPP
ralphmpasses a ♥️
moparisthebestget your dirty unicode out of here ascii will always be enough for me <3
moparisthebest/s :D
ralphm)-:
Guus❤ looks like a farting rocket in the font that I'm using.
Guusbah, client auto-replaced that. 😕
ralphmWhat's wrong with you?
Guusmany people have wondered.
moparisthebestGuus, screenshot? I want to see the farting rocket
moparisthebestzinid, you are thinking of 3===D-----
ralphmOk, this escalated quickly
GuusI see that the quality of discussion here has been improved. My work here is done.
moparisthebestI'm dying of laughter over here
ralphmPlease don't die!
Guus(if you must, laughter is a good way to go though)
Guusis that a XEP? Kill people over XMPP?
Guus<mechanism>laughter</mechanism>
ralphmMaybe as an extension to https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0132.html
zinidLAUGHTER
zinidsasl mechanisms are in all CAPS
moparisthebestI've often wanted a mechanism to slap users in the face over the internet
GuusI prefer not to authenticate when killing people online.
zinidI see total RFC violation here, we need a police
Guusmoparisthebest You'll be rich and famous.
ralphmmoparisthebest: so XEP-0132 is just the thing for you.
zinidmoparisthebest, since you appeal to practice, how do you find federation practical? Sounds like contradicting statements to me
zinidover 15 years of federating it has failed everywhere
zinid*after
ralphmYou chatting here seems to contradict your point.
zinidralphm, no, we're in a bubble here
zinidalso, prove me wrong, append federation success stories to xmpp.org pages close to the list of walled gardens of the XMPP
zinidI look at mastodon and matrix and scratch my head: what are they doing?
zinidthey didn't learn our lesson? they think they will be lucky this time?
Guusbitcoin!
Guusducks, runs.
zinidalso marginal, hyped though
ralphmI've tried to explain this before, but the supposed failure/demise of having large swaths of users on the federated Jabber network is mostly not a technical issue.
zinidralphm, does it matter?
zinidI mean what issue exactly lead to a failure
ralphmIt does, I can personally address technical issues. Product/business choices of companies, or social issues, or funding issues, or UX ones, not so much.
moparisthebestzinid, SMTP and HTTP seem to be pretty good examples of successful federation, even if you ignore XMPP
zinidmoparisthebest, yeah, happened before FAANG, still alive, also, very uneven distribution as noted many times
zinidand SMTP is PITA to self host
zinidand failed in the sense I pointed above: you either have a marginal network, or power-law
zinidxmpp/mastodon/matrix is marginal, smtp/http - power-law
moparisthebestI don't think "many users on a few servers" is a flaw of federation, nothing wrong with that in my opinion
ralphmIt took many, many years for SMTP to get to where it is in terms a federation. Email had so many different vendors and protocols.
moparisthebestthe point is you can run your own and it works
zinidmoparisthebest, so, basically a bubble
zinidand running your own SMTP is a hard task
Guuszinid, I wonder
Guusyou've been kicking and screaming for a couple of months now
Guusbasically expressing discontent with anything
zinidkicking and screaming
zinidokay
zinidI leave this chat
zinidhas left
Guuswhat is your intend...ed end goal here?
Guus... I should have worded that differently.
GuusThen again, it's not as if he's a master of subtlety. 🙂
Guus(is that a word?)
ralphmSubtlety is definitely a word.
GuusI was genuinely interested in why he acts so negative all the time. It's not very productive, nor do I think it's something that's motivating him personally. Live must be tough if you only get to work with stuff that's all of the characteristics that he gives to XMPP.
moparisthebestoh, he left
moparisthebestwas going to say running your own SMTP is a nightmare unlike XMPP but meh
moparisthebestif anything, that proves it's not "ease of use" or whatever that makes federation a success or not, XMPP is way easier
Guusmy guess is that SMTP pre-dates businessmodels for silos.
ZashNetwork effect, everything else is subjective
moparisthebestif I had to guess I'd say that was it
moparisthebestwhich is kind of why, today, if we want nice things HTTP/browsers have to push them, no one else has the pressure to get nice things :D
ZashThere was silos in email but they failed somehow
GuusXMPP is nice things, even if it's not pushed to the masses in a truly federated way.
GuusZash, I don't think there were. You could always federate with other mail accounts?
Guusunless you're not talking about things like Exchange, GMail, etc?
ZashSomething something fidonet era stuff
ralphmSilos, like AOL mail, failed because users demanded connectivity
Guusbefore my time.
ZashI wasn't around either
moparisthebestGuus, yea I meant "nice things" as in ability to connect despite port blocking, new protocols like QUIC etc
ralphmAt this point, I only see this happening through some antitrust measure.