XMPP Council - 2020-01-08


  1. susmit88 has left
  2. Kev_ has left
  3. Kev has joined
  4. beta has left
  5. beta has joined
  6. stpeter has left
  7. beta has left
  8. debacle has left
  9. stpeter has joined
  10. Kev has left
  11. Kev has joined
  12. paul has left
  13. stpeter has left
  14. stpeter has joined
  15. beta has joined
  16. beta has left
  17. beta has joined
  18. daniel has left
  19. beta has left
  20. daniel has joined
  21. daniel has left
  22. beta has joined
  23. daniel has joined
  24. beta has left
  25. beta has joined
  26. beta has left
  27. vaulor has left
  28. vaulor has joined
  29. stpeter has left
  30. beta has joined
  31. beta has left
  32. Kev has left
  33. Kev has joined
  34. beta has joined
  35. Kev_ has joined
  36. Tobias has joined
  37. paul has joined
  38. beta has left
  39. beta has joined
  40. beta has left
  41. sonny has left
  42. sonny has joined
  43. sonny has left
  44. sonny has joined
  45. Kev_ has left
  46. Kev_ has joined
  47. sonny has left
  48. sonny has joined
  49. sonny has left
  50. sonny has joined
  51. beta has joined
  52. sonny has left
  53. sonny has joined
  54. beta has left
  55. sonny has left
  56. sonny has joined
  57. vaulor has left
  58. vaulor has joined
  59. sonny has left
  60. susmit88 has joined
  61. vanitasvitae has left
  62. beta has joined
  63. sonny has joined
  64. paul has left
  65. paul has joined
  66. susmit88 has left
  67. vanitasvitae has joined
  68. susmit88 has joined
  69. beta has left
  70. beta has joined
  71. susmit88 has left
  72. susmit88 has joined
  73. sonny has left
  74. sonny has joined
  75. undefined has left
  76. undefined has joined
  77. sonny has left
  78. sonny has joined
  79. susmit88 has left
  80. susmit88 has joined
  81. sonny has left
  82. sonny has joined
  83. beta has left
  84. beta has joined
  85. larma has left
  86. larma has joined
  87. daniel has left
  88. daniel has joined
  89. daniel has left
  90. daniel has joined
  91. daniel has left
  92. daniel has joined
  93. daniel has left
  94. daniel has joined
  95. daniel has left
  96. daniel has joined
  97. susmit88 has left
  98. susmit88 has joined
  99. susmit88 has left
  100. sonny has left
  101. sonny has joined
  102. beta has left
  103. sonny has left
  104. susmit88 has joined
  105. sonny has joined
  106. Wojtek has joined
  107. susmit88 has left
  108. susmit88 has joined
  109. sonny has left
  110. sonny has joined
  111. larma has left
  112. sonny has left
  113. larma has joined
  114. beta has joined
  115. sonny has joined
  116. Max has left
  117. Max has joined
  118. larma has left
  119. larma has joined
  120. sonny has left
  121. beta has left
  122. sonny has joined
  123. beta has joined
  124. sonny has left
  125. beta has left
  126. beta has joined
  127. sonny has joined
  128. susmit88 has left
  129. susmit88 has joined
  130. sonny has left
  131. sonny has joined
  132. susmit88 has left
  133. beta has left
  134. beta has joined
  135. stpeter has joined
  136. stpeter has left
  137. beta has left
  138. debacle has joined
  139. beta has joined
  140. sonny has left
  141. sonny has joined
  142. sonny has left
  143. Wojtek has left
  144. sonny has joined
  145. Wojtek has joined
  146. beta has left
  147. beta has joined
  148. stpeter has joined
  149. jonas’ ’tis time
  150. jonas’ Let’s get started.
  151. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  152. jonas’ obviously
  153. dwd Me!
  154. daniel hi
  155. Zash hello
  156. ralphm waves
  157. jonas’ (I’m also going to implement a 1 minute timeout in this session. Unfortunately, my client doesn’t show typing notifications, so if you need more time to write a reply to an open question like "Anything else?", please send a dot or something first.)
  158. jonas’ that’s a quorum
  159. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  160. pep. (here too.)
  161. jonas’ we’ve got a ProtoXEP and the OMEMO thing on the list, is there anything I missed?
  162. larma also here if needed
  163. jonas’ Alright, moving on 3) Items for a vote
  164. jonas’ 3a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Special Interests Group End to End Encryption URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sige2ee.html Abstract: This document proposes the formation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) within the XSF devoted to the development of end-to-end encryption within the context of XMPP.
  165. jonas’ 3a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Special Interests Group End to End Encryption URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sige2ee.html Abstract: This document proposes the formation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) within the XSF devoted to the development of end-to-end encryption within the context of XMPP.
  166. jonas’ so first of all, it turns out that SIG formations/proposals have their own XEP type, so that’ll have to be adjusted by the editor
  167. Zash And this is approved by Council?
  168. jonas’ yes
  169. pep. (I wasn't entirely sure about that, and I didn't take the time to look it up properly)
  170. jonas’ > A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a working group approved by the XMPP Council to address specific areas of growth or concern within the Jabber/XMPP developer community, usually by means of developing and publishing XMPP Extension Protocols (XEPs).
  171. jonas’ https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0002.html
  172. jonas’ nobody knew, which is why we didn’t vote on this last week
  173. dwd Generally in favour. I had some comments around the second bullet point, but assuming this goes to Experimental before a LC and Active, I'm +1
  174. ralphm Also noted in our Bylaws
  175. jonas’ I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a SIG Formation or a SIG Proposal
  176. ralphm Section 8.2
  177. jonas’ I’m going to be on-list, because the procedure is unclear to me
  178. jonas’ anyone else who wants to cast votes in this meeting?
  179. Ge0rG Hi! Sorry for being late.
  180. ralphm jonas’, which part is unclear?
  181. dwd I did cast a vote.
  182. jonas’ ralphm, - Is this a SIG Proposal or a SIG Formation? - If SIG Formation, does the XEP need to specify who is part of the SIG leadership? If not, where is this recorded? - Is it even legitimate for a SIG to be open for non-XSF members? (It isn’t for SIG leadership)
  183. Ge0rG 3a( +1
  184. jonas’ ralphm, but I think this isn’t the right venue to figure this out, since all of this should be documented somewhere I can read it. If I’m missing info, I’ll probably head to other council members or board as required.
  185. daniel sorry i haven’t had time to read the final draft; i assuming that i'm going to be +1 ; but on list for now
  186. ralphm SIGs are open by nature, however, its leaders must be members
  187. dwd I would assume a SIG Proposal, and needs to be Active for a Formation.
  188. pep. §8.2 of the bylaws says: "Because a SIG is an open forum, participation in a SIG shall not be limited to elected Members of the Corporation, and shall be open to any interested individual. Leadership and direction for a SIG shall be provided by the members (and in particular by the Chair) of the relevant XSF Work Team or the XMPP Council."
  189. jonas’ dwd, things in the past have used SIG Proposal and SIG Formation type of XEPs
  190. dwd jonas’, Oh.
  191. jonas’ dwd, see, it’s complicated, and I don’t want to waste time in this meeting while I read up on things :)
  192. jonas’ I expect the next point to be more contentious.
  193. jonas’ 3b) Do something about the OMEMO XEP Dave suggested that we try to get OMEMO into Rejected state (which may meean moving it via Proposed or asking Board for assistance).
  194. jonas’ dwd, do you want to summarise what this is about?
  195. dwd I think we have already, but it's not clear that OMEMO can (or, possibly, should) be made Draft.
  196. dwd The "can" relates to whether OMEMO can be implemented without the use of a GPL library. There are people arguing both ways on this.
  197. jonas’ dwd, though that’s not a strict requirement for Draft, is it?
  198. dwd jonas’, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#objectives argues otherwise, since GPL would could as an "encumberance".
  199. Zash Can you implement it based on only specifications or not?
  200. ralphm As stated on list, I believe that in its current form, this XEP violates Objective 4 of XEP-0001, and can therefore not move forward.
  201. jonas’ right, true
  202. dwd Any particular license would, in fact.
  203. dwd Zash, I have been told both yes and no.
  204. Zash Ugh
  205. jonas’ so, I think the ambiguity alone is sufficent
  206. pep. Sufficient to do what?
  207. ralphm Indeed, the (legal) ambiguity alone is an "encumbrance".
  208. jonas’ while normally we don’t require proof (except in form of the IPR) that a protocol is not under any restrictive license, the uncertainty about the signal protocol requires extra proof to let this move forward, IMO
  209. dwd I mean, absolutely not right now, because the specification doesn't reference the libsignal docs. Whether the libsignal docs are sufficient to implement a non-GPL clone of libsignal is the ambiguous question.
  210. jonas’ and the proof might be hard to bring, since I feel that this is a grey area of copyright law (akin to the still-ongoing API debate between google and oracle) which needs to be fought out over courts, and that’s not a good standing for an open standard
  211. larma OMEMO lacks a lot of specification / documentation and that is a reason to not move it to Draft. Unfortunately so far, nobody ever tried to gather a conclusive list of what is missing (because everyone just uses libsignal)
  212. jonas’ (and this is all in addition to the issues with the "shady" practices around this XEP)
  213. Zash copyright lawyering doesn't sound like a job for Council :|
  214. ralphm It doesn't.
  215. dwd larma, I know of at least one effort to make a non-GPL client using OMEMO failed with the author deciding it wasn't possible given available information. I know of other people who claim it is, but there is very little evidence either way.
  216. larma dwd, can you point me their? would like to read/hear reasoning
  217. jonas’ so my concrete suggestion would be to: - Change XEP-0384 to historical type and lock it update-wise - If the community wants to pursue signal-ish E2EE under the umbrella of the XSF, they need to provide a proper (and I think this time we should require "as few references as possible") document to describe how to do it from basic principles
  218. jonas’ And on the long-term, we should probably pursue MLS
  219. debacle has left
  220. ralphm If an actual protocol specifications would exist, we could point to it, and would have a lot less discussion on hypotheticals. Also, prior legal posturing by the Signal authors doesn't help this situation.
  221. Zash jonas’: sounds sensible
  222. jonas’ we probably need Boards OK for changing a XEP type after acceptance
  223. dwd ralphm, Do we need Board here?
  224. Zash Wasn't the current version meant to be what amounts to Historical anyways?
  225. larma jonas’, I think everyone is happy with longterm MLS replacing OMEMO
  226. jonas’ larma, that’s at least something
  227. Ge0rG don't we have a SIG for that?
  228. ralphm I'm not sure how changing to historical is addressing the concern.
  229. jonas’ Ge0rG, not yet
  230. pep. And SIGs don't have that authority do they
  231. Ge0rG would it make sense to postpone those hairy questions for the SIG?
  232. jonas’ Ge0rG, I’d rather not until it is clear to me how SIG leadership works.
  233. daniel > Wasn't the current version meant to be what amounts to Historical anyways? iirc that was the intent; but was deemed impossible to switch tracks
  234. jonas’ ralphm, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types-Historical I think historical (while you need to stretch the definition of "before" a bit) fits this quite nicely and would be loopholey enough to look in a different direction when someone talks about objective #4
  235. jonas’ (to me anyways)
  236. ralphm dwd: I think the Editor can change the type at the instruction of Council as long as Council remains its approving body.
  237. ralphm SIGs don't have any authority, in principle.
  238. ralphm jonas’, I think this spec doesn't meet the definition of historical, and as I mentioned above, I'm not sure how it addresses Objective 4.
  239. dwd Speaking of Board and remits and so on, it may be that violating Objectives is something that only Board can decide anyway, which neatly makes it someone else's problem.
  240. jonas’ ralphm, my point being: It is clearly unfit for Standards Track, mainly for the license reason. However, it’s worthwhile to document what’s currently going on in the XMPP ecosystem. Especially in the case of OMEMO, which is a PITA when you don’t have it.
  241. Zash I'd happily +1 shuffling this over to Board :)
  242. jonas’ It doesn’t 100% fit the definition of Historical, but if we want to have this still as a XEP (and I think we should), Historical is probably the best place. Informational may work too, but only if Informational has some type of Deprecated state
  243. jonas’ it does, so I’d also be fine with Informational+Deprecated
  244. ralphm Council itself can perfectly decide on what violates the objectives on its own.
  245. Zash I wouldn't oppose tweaking the definition of Historical
  246. jonas’ (we’re heading towards the magic :30 mark, and I have a quick AOB, so I’ll terminate this discussion at about :27)
  247. ralphm I would object to tweaking our process just to accomodate the fact that people want to have a specification like OMEMO
  248. daniel yeah i also like 'historical' (mostly for what jonas’ said)
  249. dwd I'd be fine with any status that does not make any suggestion that this is a recommended protocol by the XSF.
  250. Ge0rG I'm fine with either Historical or Informational+Deprecated, with a slight preference to the former.
  251. Ge0rG Maybe we also need a blog post explaining the rationale.
  252. ralphm IMO, you can 1) decide to not move it forward until the objective is met, e.g. by switching back to the previous protocol or forward to MLS, 2) dismiss the XEP is unacceptable.
  253. jonas’ Ge0rG, I think daniel volunteered to do that last week
  254. daniel (and again; historical was i believe my original preference before we put in the siacs namespaces; however that wasn’t possible and thus we ended up with the 'compromise' that we have now)
  255. jonas’ I propose we instruct the Editor to create a patch which: - Moves to Informational - Changes to Deprecated - Adds necessary rewording to make it clear that this is an embedding of the Signal protocol and not a generally preferred and open E2EE scheme
  256. ralphm My opinion is that both historical and informational+deprecated don't carry the right message.
  257. pep. I'm not entirely fine with Deprecated while we don't have a replacement
  258. pep. Informational is probably ok
  259. Zash ralphm: Rejected?
  260. ralphm Yes
  261. pep. (nor Rejected)
  262. jonas’ Rejected would work too for me
  263. jonas’ though technically rejected would have to go through Proposed
  264. Ge0rG I have a feeling that either change will cause contention outside of the XSF membership
  265. ralphm arguably dwd proposed it to be rejected, so there's that
  266. pep. What's the message we're sending doing this?
  267. jonas’ okay, instead of a vote, can we have a quick show of hands from council members: Do you agree that OMEMO as it stands currently should be demoted from its current position and put in a dead end?
  268. Zash pep.: "This isn't the Right Way"
  269. jonas’ (if we agree on this, we can figure out the specifics later)
  270. daniel > What's the message we're sending doing this? that the xsf doesn’t care about e2ee
  271. ralphm pep., that we don't base our standards on libraries
  272. pep. daniel, that, exactly
  273. dwd I'm actually fine with putting it through a Last Call, which would then allow us to declare it counter to the objectives and then Rejected.
  274. Ge0rG that the xsf is hostile towards E2EE
  275. daniel (not objecting the proposed changes; but that is the message)
  276. pep. If you're all fine with this then good for you. I'm not
  277. Zash The XSF likes surveilance!!!11!1eleven /s
  278. ralphm In the same blog post, you could mention that we (Dave and I) have reached out to the MLS WG to offer our assistence.
  279. pep. ralphm, so it's ready in 5 years instead of 10?
  280. Ge0rG jonas’: +1 on the general demotion
  281. pep. And in implementations in ~7
  282. larma if you put it to last call, please make the last call more than 2 weeks so that people have the time to extend the specification to make the whole reason to reject it invalid
  283. Zash jonas’: hand
  284. ralphm pep., this is not a great argument. Have you even looked at what's there?
  285. jonas’ larma, that sohuld happen BEFORE last call
  286. jonas’ the XEP has been inactive for a looong while
  287. Ge0rG ..in the last year or so, actually
  288. jonas’ okay, we’re running out of time
  289. jonas’ I see that this clearly needs more discussion. I encourage you to take it to the list or to xsf@.
  290. dwd "hand", BTW.
  291. larma jonas’, yes, it didn't happen, I agree, but what do we do with all the other XEPs that are not maintained?
  292. pep. ralphm, it's not even a XEP yet. is there even an implementation outside of XMPP at all (that works with proper chat solutions).
  293. jonas’ 4) Date of next
  294. jonas’ +1w wfm
  295. pep. The XSF is not really a symbol of swiftness
  296. jonas’ pep., please, outside of this meeting
  297. dwd jonas’, +1
  298. pep. k
  299. ralphm pep. indeed swiftness is not a goal, you may disagree, of course
  300. Zash jonas’: +1 +1w
  301. Ge0rG I might be in an overrunning meeting in +1W, so I excuse myself in advance
  302. jonas’ alright
  303. jonas’ 5) AOB
  304. jonas’ 5a) Editor Mishap Report
  305. jonas’ I accidentally merged https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/870 which should’ve been Needs Author. I reverted the change just before the meeting and published Version 0.4.0 without the changes from #870
  306. jonas’ this is mostly an FYI
  307. jonas’ (changing the existing version would be confusing and cover-up-ish, so I decided to instead publish a new one)
  308. Ge0rG related to this, the author asked for XSF / Council feedback on the proposed change.
  309. Zash Ack.
  310. jonas’ also, what Ge0rG says.
  311. jonas’ Ge0rG, can you please re-do your MR on top of current master?
  312. dwd Seems like a good fix.
  313. jonas’ should be as simple as a cherry pick
  314. jonas’ then you can post to list asking for feedback
  315. Ge0rG Alright, I'll try to do it when I have some more time
  316. jonas’ Ge0rG, thanks
  317. jonas’ and since we’re already over time
  318. jonas’ 6) Ite Meeting Est
  319. jonas’ Thanks everyone
  320. jonas’ please carry any further technical or procedural discussion about OMEMO to xsf@, where more stakeholders are present and which is more discoverable to the community in general
  321. dwd Thanks jonas’!
  322. Zash Thanks jonas’
  323. Max has left
  324. Max has joined
  325. flow Ge0rG> Maybe we also need a blog post explaining the rationale. A disclaimer, potentially linking to the blog post, in xep-omemo would probably be also a good idea
  326. jonas’ flow, -> xsf@
  327. jonas’ (where I already proposed that)
  328. sonny has left
  329. sonny has joined
  330. debacle has joined
  331. Tobias has left
  332. Tobias has joined
  333. Tobias has left
  334. Tobias has joined
  335. sonny has left
  336. sonny has joined
  337. Wojtek has left
  338. sonny has left
  339. sonny has joined
  340. debacle has left
  341. sonny has left
  342. vaulor has left
  343. vaulor has joined
  344. sonny has joined
  345. sonny has left
  346. sonny has joined
  347. sonny has left
  348. sonny has joined
  349. undefined has left
  350. undefined has joined
  351. sonny has left
  352. sonny has joined
  353. sonny has left
  354. sonny has joined
  355. sonny has left
  356. sonny has joined
  357. Tobias has left
  358. Zash has left
  359. debacle has joined
  360. moparisthebest has left
  361. daniel has left
  362. daniel has joined
  363. daniel has left
  364. moparisthebest has joined
  365. moparisthebest has left
  366. moparisthebest has joined
  367. paul has left
  368. daniel has joined