-
Ge0rG
It is the time and the day.
-
Ge0rG
And I even have a Controversial Agendum!
-
dwd
Afternoon all.
-
dwd
1) Roll Call
- Ge0rG ,o/
-
Link Mauve
Hi. o/
-
Ge0rG
hello one-armed Link Mauve
-
jonas’
here
-
dwd
I've a vague recollection Kev said he'd likely miss this one.
-
Kev
Maybe
-
dwd
2) Agenda Bashing
-
Kev
I'm here.
-
dwd
I don't think there's anything, but I see Ge0rG wants to fight with me on this. :-)
-
Ge0rG
15:23:18 Ge0rG> dwd: can we add https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854 to tomorrow's agenda? The worst thing that can happen is that it will be re-voted by New Council
-
dwd
Oh, fair enough.
-
Ge0rG
It's a PR adding to MUC-PM: > Private messages are meant to hide a user's real JID from occupants they are talking to. In <link url='#enter-nonanon'>non-anonymous rooms</link>, a client SHOULD NOT resort to private messages, but instead make use of direct messages to the other occupant's real bare JID. However, if the user knows the other JID for other reasons, e.g. because they are a room admin, private messages SHOULD be used anyway.
-
Ge0rG
rendered version at https://op-co.de/tmp/xep-0045.html#privatemessage
-
dwd
Anyone have anything else?
-
jonas’
+1 from me
-
jonas’
oh, we’re not even voting yet
-
dwd
jonas’, Patience.
-
jonas’
sorry, no, nothing from e✎ -
jonas’
sorry, no, nothing from me ✏
-
dwd
OK. In that case:
-
Link Mauve
Neither from me.
-
dwd
3) Items for a vote.
-
dwd
a) XEP-0045: Direct messages SHOULD be used over PMs in non-anonymous rooms #854
-
dwd
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854
-
jonas’
+1 on #854
-
Link Mauve
+1 for that, it’s making the UX easier for users with no downside.
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
Ge0rG
I'm sure some people will consider this a Breaking Change, though.
-
Kev
How does the client know that it's 'other reasons'?
-
Link Mauve
Kev, it should be aware that the room isn’t non-anonymous by doing disco#info on it.
-
dwd
I think I'm going to be difficult. I understand the rationale (I think), but it remains unclear why this is a good idea, and it's unclear there are any interoperability concerns (which makes me question RFC 2119 language).
-
Ge0rG
> If the user is entering a room that is non-anonymous (i.e., which informs all occupants of each occupant's full JID as shown above), the service MUST warn the user by including a status code of "100" in the initial presence that the room sends to the new occupant
-
jonas’
!100_received && jid_known => other_reasons
-
Kev
dwd: I think there potentially /are/ interoperability concerns. Those messages might get swallowed because the users aren't in each other's roster and they're blocking messages from such.
-
Link Mauve
Or 100 yeah.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: direct messages are typically much more robust than MUC-PMs, delivery-wise
-
Link Mauve
Kev, or s2s is broken for $reasons.
-
dwd
Kev, Oh, that's true. Although if they're blocking the user deliberately - I see arguments pro and con.
-
Kev
dwd: But if they're simply not allowing non-roster messages...
-
Link Mauve
Kev, shouldn’t they also block MUC PMs in this case?
-
Kev
Or non-presence messages, I should say.
-
dwd
My problem isn't even if this is a good idea, it's that it's marked as a SHOULD without really explaining the considerations involved.
-
Ge0rG
not allowing non-roster messages is a very bad practice.
-
jonas’
Kev, but isn’t that already an interop problem in and of itself?
-
Kev
Link Mauve: I meant non-presence, really, rather than non-roster.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I started typing it as "should", but then I realized that RFC2119 applies either way and made it explicit
-
Kev
We started doing this in Swift, and actually ended up with messages not getting through that previously did.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: what are the considerations that are missing?
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, blah. I disagree that it does apply in non-caps, but it's somewhat irrelevant.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: if lowercasing it will please you, I can surely do that ;)
-
Kev
So I think rushing this through at the last moment of this Council is ill-advised. Better to wait for a Council who have full voting periods to consider the implications.
-
Link Mauve
Kev, on the other hand, I’ve had users report that it was terribly confusing to have two different chats with me (due to clicking on me from the MUC vs. from their roster, but they didn’t know that).
-
Kev
But this breaks things, so if we really want to vote now, I'm -1.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: we still have a week left.
-
Ge0rG
What Link Mauve said.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, put it into modernxmpp.org
-
Link Mauve
jonas’, it already is there.
-
jonas’
ah, good.
-
Kev
Link Mauve: Indeed. And it's worth discussing that. But normative language here in this way isn't right.
-
Ge0rG
I actually experienced that with a coworker, who was confused about how those two chats are different.
-
dwd
Link Mauve, I've had users say they like the seperation of 1:1 messages and private messages relating to a groupchat.
-
Link Mauve
Kev, I think this is what this change is about. :)
-
Ge0rG
dwd: did those users grasp the difference?
-
Kev
As I say - we implemented this in Swift because it seemed like the Obviously Right thing to do - and then found it wasn't, necessarily.
-
dwd
Link Mauve, And if a client wishes to combine those into a single UX, what prevents it?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: your description rather sounds like it still is the Obviously Right thing to do, but there are technical implementation problems associated
-
Link Mauve
dwd, nothing, they perfectly can avoid this recommendation.
-
Ge0rG
also something about trust domains and how a MUC can manipulate all and everything coming in through it
-
dwd
Link Mauve, No, I mean, if a client wishes to present PMs in a non-anonymous room in the same message stream as 1:1 messages, surely it can?
-
dwd
Finally, I think there's a security issue wherein a semi-anonymous room could easily confuse a MUC admin's client into revealing the MUC admin's jid.
-
Kev
So I think these are the right questions to be asking, but I don't think this text is the right way to answer them.
-
Kev
Or not in isolation, at least.
-
dwd
But yes, I get, entirely, there are reasons why clients might want to send messages directly, and present PMs as direct messages. I'm not not comfortable putting a blanket requirement into '45 without some explanation of the considerations involved.
-
dwd
So I'm going to be awkward and -1 this.
-
Ge0rG
dwd, Kev: do you have specific advice on how to move on?
-
Link Mauve
dwd, a client can, but for instance multiple clients may not and it will be even more confusing to see half of the discussion happening on one client, and the full conversation on the other, as if Carbons wasn’t enabled.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Off the hoof, I'm not sure I have a complete answer. It at least involves relaxing the language from SHOULD and having a discussion of the implications of both options, I think.
-
Kev
(And Security Considerations, as Dave says)
-
dwd
I have a feeling a lot more text will be involved. But more or less what Kev says.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm aiming for consistency here, which is why I wanted the SHOULD
-
Kev
It's possible that appropriate discussion text means that a SHOULD is possible, I'm not sure at this point.
-
Ge0rG
I agree that more text about the trade-offs would be helpful, but historically we aren't good at offering such text, and I'm missing an appropriate XML element to style it as such
-
dwd
Ge0rG, If the text said "generally prefer" instead of SHOULD I would be more comfortable.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: noted
-
dwd
Ge0rG, But I don't think it's anywhere close to "Always do this and if you don't expect things to break", which is the approximate translation of SHOULD.
-
Kev
Having a SHOULD means that a receiving client should be able to make assumptions, too.
-
Ge0rG
re Security Considerations, the MUC can fake everything and anything, and I hoped that the text is clear about when NOT to do it
-
Ge0rG
dwd: isn't that the approximate translation of MUST, with SHOULD being more like "you should be knowing very well what you do if you violate a SHOULD"
-
dwd
Ge0rG, The gap between MUST and SHOULD is very small indeed. :-)
-
Ge0rG
dwd: it SHOULD be larger, though.
-
dwd
Anyway. Moving on?
-
Ge0rG
Sorry.
-
Ge0rG
does it make sense to bring this up again, next week, with relaxed text and pros and cons added?
-
Ge0rG
also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
-
dwd
Sure. And if it's well-discussed on the list it stands a good chance.
-
jonas’
maybe, but if you’ve got it prepared for next council it doesn’t harm
-
Kev
I think there might be people outside this room who have experience here that is relevant, so I think listing it is important.
-
Kev
e.g. it's coincidence that I happen to be on Council (this week) and could say "We tried this and some things break".
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I can't promise a list discussion happening within a week
-
Link Mauve
Even if it takes two, it should be fine.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: but if I send a mail to standards@, and you reply to it, maybe more people will notice.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Sounds good.
-
Kev
I will promise to try to respond :)
-
Ge0rG
> also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
-
dwd
Anyway, really moving on.
-
dwd
4) Next Meeting
-
dwd
Next week?
-
Kev
I *think* I can.
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
dwd
I think we'll try then. :-)
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
dwd
5) Any Other Business?
-
Ge0rG
none here
-
Kev
Newp.
-
dwd
Really?
-
dwd
:-)
-
dwd
In that case:
-
dwd
6) Ite, Meeting Est
-
Link Mauve
\o_
-
Ge0rG
> also please provide clearer advice re your expectations of what kind of Security Considerations to add
-
dwd
One more to go, and the hopefully someone else will wat to have a go.
-
jonas’
thanks, dwd
-
pep.
> dwd: if lowercasing it will please you, I can surely do that ;) We haven't settled on changing 2119 to the update have we. That was never resolved
-
dwd
Yes, I think it was resolved, in the sense of "Not without individually checking every document carefully".
-
Ge0rG
pep.: yes, that went down on some TODO list
-
dwd
It'd probably be useful to do the groundwork allowing us to change them one by one, and adopt the updated version (that I can't recall the number of) for new documents and revisions ona case-by-case.
-
dwd
That part is just XSLT stuff that's an Editor job. Sorry. But it'll allow us to move more easily on the issue.
-
flow
and we could at least update the boilerplate text regarding 2119 at least for new XEPs
-
pep.
flow, agreed
-
dwd
Exactly.