XMPP Council - 2020-01-15

  1. blackbook has left

  2. daniel has joined

  3. vaulor has joined

  4. daniel has left

  5. daniel has joined

  6. blackbook has joined

  7. blackbook has left

  8. moparisthebest has left

  9. moparisthebest has joined

  10. blackbook has joined

  11. blackbook has left

  12. blackbook has joined

  13. blackbook has left

  14. blackbook has joined

  15. daniel has left

  16. blackbook has left

  17. stpeter has joined

  18. daniel has joined

  19. susmit88 has left

  20. daniel has left

  21. susmit88 has joined

  22. susmit88 has left

  23. susmit88 has joined

  24. daniel has joined

  25. daniel has left

  26. susmit88 has left

  27. susmit88 has joined

  28. vaulor has left

  29. daniel has joined

  30. daniel has left

  31. paul has left

  32. susmit88 has left

  33. susmit88 has joined

  34. daniel has joined

  35. susmit88 has left

  36. susmit88 has joined

  37. blackbook has joined

  38. blackbook has left

  39. vaulor has joined

  40. stpeter has left

  41. susmit88 has left

  42. susmit88 has joined

  43. daniel has left

  44. daniel has joined

  45. daniel has left

  46. susmit88 has left

  47. susmit88 has joined

  48. Tobias has joined

  49. blackbook has joined

  50. blackbook has left

  51. daniel has joined

  52. paul has joined

  53. daniel has left

  54. susmit88 has left

  55. susmit88 has joined

  56. daniel has joined

  57. daniel has left

  58. susmit88 has left

  59. susmit88 has joined

  60. daniel has joined

  61. hichamel has joined

  62. daniel has left

  63. daniel has joined

  64. susmit88 has left

  65. susmit88 has joined

  66. daniel has left

  67. susmit88 has left

  68. daniel has joined

  69. susmit88 has joined

  70. blackbook has joined

  71. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I'd like to AOB the 0401 PR

  72. Ge0rG

    But only if I can make it to the meeting, which still isn't ensured

  73. ralphm

    If you propose an item before the meeting, is it really AOB? 🤔

  74. sonny has left

  75. blackbook has left

  76. hichamel has left

  77. Ge0rG

    ralphm: it's after the agenda announcement, so I have no idea

  78. daniel has left

  79. daniel has joined

  80. sonny has joined

  81. undefined has left

  82. undefined has joined

  83. susmit88 has left

  84. susmit88 has joined

  85. susmit88 has left

  86. susmit88 has joined

  87. blackbook has joined

  88. blackbook has left

  89. sonny has left

  90. sonny has joined

  91. Remko has joined

  92. debacle has joined

  93. sonny has left

  94. sonny has joined

  95. larma has left

  96. susmit88 has left

  97. susmit88 has joined

  98. larma has joined

  99. debacle has left

  100. susmit88 has left

  101. susmit88 has joined

  102. debacle has joined

  103. blackbook has joined

  104. blackbook has left

  105. Remko has left

  106. Remko has joined

  107. sonny has left

  108. Wojtek has joined

  109. Remko has left

  110. sonny has joined

  111. sonny has left

  112. sonny has joined

  113. susmit88 has left

  114. susmit88 has joined

  115. blackbook has joined

  116. blackbook has left

  117. stpeter has joined

  118. blackbook has joined

  119. blackbook has left

  120. blackbook has joined

  121. stpeter has left

  122. stpeter has joined

  123. blackbook has left

  124. daniel has left

  125. blackbook has joined

  126. daniel has joined

  127. pep.

    I'd like to bring this PR to council's attention before the meeting: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/878

  128. stpeter has left

  129. blackbook has left

  130. sonny has left

  131. stpeter has joined

  132. susmit88 has left

  133. blackbook has joined

  134. jonas’

    I don’t see how that new wording makes any sense whatsoever

  135. jonas’

    that’s like saying "That’s not a tree" while pointing at a tree

  136. sonny has joined

  137. jonas’

    but I’ll bring it up in the discussion, thanks for reminding me

  138. blackbook has left

  139. blackbook has joined

  140. sonny has left

  141. blackbook has left

  142. blackbook has joined

  143. blackbook has left

  144. blackbook has joined

  145. stpeter has left

  146. blackbook has left

  147. Zash

    Waiting for a bus, might have high latency during the meeting

  148. Ge0rG

    I'm sitting at a real computer, looking at my XMPP client, and there are no distractions.

  149. sonny has joined

  150. Ge0rG

    The only potential problem is my android phone disabling the tethering all the time.

  151. Ge0rG

    Also looks like I was able to catch up with the vote from two weeks ago, just in time

  152. jonas’

    Zash, relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXiB5n883I

  153. jonas’

    ("Waiting for the Bus")

  154. Zash


  155. Zash


  156. jonas’

    Zash, bring some

  157. jonas’

    we haven’t had any snow yet this winter :(

  158. Ge0rG

    it's 14°C where I am.

  159. Ge0rG

    on the outside, not in the room.

  160. ralphm

    But we still call it "winter".

  161. Ge0rG

    only by convention.

  162. stpeter has joined

  163. jonas’

    ’tis time

  164. jonas’


  165. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  166. Ge0rG ,o/

  167. daniel

    i’m here

  168. Zash has left

  169. Zash has joined

  170. Zash

    It rained earlier and yesterday

  171. Zash

    I hope that at least melted most of the thick ice covering everything

  172. jonas’

    to make it a even smoother layer of ice? ;)

  173. jonas’

    okay, three to four out of five, that’s good enough

  174. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  175. jonas’

    We’ve got "something about OMEMO", and a pre-AOB by Ge0rG. Anything else?

  176. Zash

    Here, reconnected

  177. Ge0rG

    jonas’: #878

  178. pep.


  179. jonas’

    Ge0rG, part of OMEMO

  180. jonas’

    pep., SIG-E2EE started voting last week

  181. jonas’

    so that’s part of "outstanding votes"

  182. pep.


  183. jonas’

    okay, let’s dive right in

  184. jonas’

    3) Items for voting

  185. jonas’

    3a) Something about OMEMO Last week, the council expressed a desire to do something to explicitly demote the current OMEMO XEP. Options which floated the room, IIRC, were: - Propose and then (most likely) Reject - Change track to Historical - Change track to Informational and set to Obsoleted

  186. pep.

    This is assuming a take over of the authorship by council?

  187. jonas’

    no need to

  188. jonas’

    though that’d be a detail we can discuss

  189. jonas’

    We don’t have voting tools to decide on either way. I think Informational/Obsoleted would be what I prefer though.

  190. daniel

    people have come forward (including myself) with the sort of promise to produce a revised omemo spec until begining/mid februrary. if we now vote on moving omemo to a state that we can’t get it out of we are forcing them to create a new XEP

  191. jonas’

    daniel, I think that’s actually desirable.

  192. ralphm

    I don't see how it is Informational, though, and Obsoleted implies that it has been Active before.

  193. jonas’

    ralphm, it’s informational, because it’s deployed in a major share of software *right now*

  194. Zash

    So are some historical things, no?

  195. pep.

    Why is it desirable to create a new XEP? OMEMO is still experimental

  196. ralphm

    jonas’, well, it is also Experimental, so changes are a natural thing there.

  197. blackbook has joined

  198. dwd

    Sorry for the lateness! Busy day in work.

  199. jonas’

    pep., because of the exceptional high degree of deployment. Discovering individual XEP versions is still a PITA, and it needs a major version bump

  200. jonas’

    but then again, I don’t have a strong opinion in which way we demote it

  201. daniel

    i'm torn on whether or not newmemo (working title) should have a new number; i see both sides of the argument

  202. pep.

    Seems to me like we are setting a precedent for lots of things here.

  203. jonas’

    daniel, it needs a new number and a new (technical) name, IMO

  204. jonas’

    otherwise this is going to cause lots of confusion

  205. daniel

    i might actually be beneficial that omemo is still discoverable w/o going to the attic

  206. daniel


  207. ralphm

    jonas’ why not Rejected, then?

  208. jonas’

    be it OMEMO 2.0 or something else

  209. jonas’

    ralphm, I’m fine with rejected. I said something to get the discussion started.

  210. Kev

    jonas’: There is a counter-argument, which is that 'fixing' OMEMO under the OMEMO name might help matters of future adoption, as anyone implementing the Experimental XEP would have expected to need to update in the future.

  211. ralphm

    Kev: I like that

  212. jonas’

    Kev, also a valid point

  213. pep.

    Isn't that what the experimental status is for

  214. pep.


  215. ralphm

    pep., it is

  216. ralphm

    in fact, we started it out being based on OLM

  217. jonas’

    so what do we want to have as procedure here?

  218. pep.

    Not rush the whole thing

  219. dwd

    Reading back through the original discussion, the plan was indeed to alter it in-situ after having got a version to point to which had the deployed design.

  220. pep.

    For a start

  221. daniel

    there is also the counter counter argument that it weakens the omemo brand

  222. daniel

    by having incompatible stuff out there

  223. jonas’

    Proposal: - We issue an LC. Due to the expected amount of discussion, we give it 3 weeks or so. - After the LC, it’s beginning of Feb - The new-OMEMO team either has a rough draft for new-OMEMO by that time, or we go with rejection

  224. ralphm

    jonas’, Council can deem it not ready for advancement for the arguments presented over the course of the last two weeks, and then advise it being revised to not depend on libsignal

  225. Kev

    dwd: ISTR this is why the 'roll-back' to signal was allowed by Council in the first place - that it was to be followed by 'fixing' it.

  226. dwd

    Kev, Exactly that.

  227. daniel

    why a LC?

  228. jonas’

    daniel, to be able to go to Rejected from there as per XEP-0001

  229. ralphm

    daniel, good question. I don't expect new arguments going forward.

  230. jonas’

    daniel, also, this can bring in more feedback from the wider community

  231. dwd

    I'm a little unsure of a LC myself - it cannot advance along the Standards Track, so an LC is really only useful as a process workaround.

  232. jonas’

    I expect new-OMEMO to not only fix the licensing issues, but also possible other issues in the OMEMO stack

  233. Kev

    From pride of place in the peanut gallery, LCing here seems to be creating more heat than light. Why not wait a few weeks for the next version of OMEMO to start taking shape, and can work things out from there?

  234. blackbook has left

  235. jonas’

    I think possible additional feedback into the new-OMEMO process from the community wouldn’t be a bad thing.

  236. Kev

    The only reason for the urgency that I can see is that our IPR process says that we should be moving to replace it because it's encumbered, and we'd be doing that.

  237. ralphm

    Following Section 7 of XEP-0001, dwd kinda proposed this XEP, and Council can decide it is not ready right now.

  238. pep.

    "The new-OMEMO team either has a rough draft for new-OMEMO by that time, or we go with rejection" I personally don't like this. This is being rushed because this whole drama started. They're not paid to do anything about it, and I don't think they've planned to meet before the arbitrary dates you just set

  239. daniel

    jonas’, i think we (whoever 'we' is in that context) have enough feedback; now it just needs people to process that feedback and produce a working spec

  240. jonas’

    pep., the dates are arbitrary, and not fixed. this is about the concept

  241. dwd

    pep., There has been over two years, in fairness - hardly a rush.

  242. jonas’

    pep., and *again*, exactly what dwd says.

  243. jonas’

    daniel, fair

  244. ralphm

    Kev: I saw an argument that this might only hold for stuff that has progressed beyond Experimental. I'm willing to bend on that point.

  245. pep.

    you mean the act of shutting it down is not rushed?

  246. dwd

    Do we want to ensure that the XSF publishes a findable copy of OMEMO as-is in the future? This was a requirement of the original compromise.

  247. jonas’

    ralphm, this is off-topic, but I meant to reply on that with a differing opinion

  248. pep.

    When has council ever reminded the author/community about the issue?

  249. Kev

    dwd: That's already happened because of the versioning, hasn't it?

  250. larma

    jonas’, to be fair, discussions about "newmemo" have been ongoing for some time already, there just are no visible results yet

  251. jonas’

    pep., it’s not our job to remind everyone

  252. jonas’

    Kev, our versioning is most certainly not discoverable

  253. Kev

    ralphm: That isn't my reading, FWIW, although I think in this case it shouldn't matter.

  254. dwd

    Kev, That was indeed the original idea. My question is more whether we still feel that's sufficient.

  255. larma

    < 2 years is not a lot when it comes to designing a crypto protocol (especially as noone involved is paid for doing this)

  256. jonas’

    Kev, it is very bound to the suboptimal rules in XEP-0001 making it hard to see what’s going on in the revision history, but that’s a topic for a difefrent day

  257. jonas’

    larma, I sure hope we’re not designing a crypto protocol from scratch

  258. Kev

    From my non-voting point of view the most important thing is that there is a plan for resolving the mess, and that it seems OMEMO-as-is in someway sunset. I think the nature of XEP numbers is less important than that.

  259. dwd

    jonas’, I'm sure that's not what larma means.

  260. Ge0rG

    can't we postpone this question until we get somw feedback from the yet-to-be-founded SIG-E2EE?

  261. ralphm

    Well, the current state is Deferred. If somebody wants to take it out, either with the work that was labeled OMEMO:2, or Proposing it as is, Council is bound to act. So the question now is, is the current spec as published a problem.

  262. larma

    it would already be rushing to request all the things that are noted to be written down in 3 months if everyone agreed that this is eveything to consider (and yes, new ideas and things popped up within the last two years repeatedly)

  263. ralphm

    (regarding Objective 4 and our IPR Policy)

  264. dwd

    ralphm, For me, yes, in as much as it's on the Standards Track.

  265. dwd

    ralphm, Which seems to show intent.

  266. ralphm

    dwd: I agree, to be sure.

  267. jonas’


  268. pep.

    I don't think it's a problem as noted by larma on the list. the XEP is experimental and §3.2 of the IPR explicitely states "after approval the XEP must not [..]"

  269. pep.

    which is used in 0001 to mean Draft.

  270. Kev

    Can I suggest that as a minimum, it would be sane to explain that the current XEP (at the top of the XEP) is encumbered, can't advance in our standards process as-is, and that the XSF is looking to replace it? That would satisfy our own policy at least.

  271. jonas’

    The situation obviously changed since -7d. So I propose that we let this rest until some time shortly after Summit and revisit then.

  272. dwd

    jonas’, How has it changed?

  273. larma

    Kev, that's pretty much what https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/878 does no?

  274. jonas’

    The situation obviously changed since -7d. So I propose that we let the attempt to move OMEMO into a final-obsoleted state rest until some time shortly after Summit and revisit then.

  275. ralphm

    Kev: I like that

  276. jonas’

    dwd, the clear statement of people actively working on newomemo is new

  277. jonas’

    (to me either way)

  278. jonas’

    larma, right, #878

  279. Kev

    larma: I think 878 is saying "This isn't signal, honest. We'll call it signal, but we totally don't mean it.".

  280. ralphm

    Given that daniel made the last significant change, can we consider him the Author?

  281. jonas’

    I think 878 is about as non-sensical as saying "This is not a tree" while pointing at a tree and does nothing good.

  282. pep.

    jonas’, agreed, I also don't like the lack of transparency around newmemo

  283. larma

    Kev, it's also saying it's not supposed to mean signal in the future, no?

  284. ralphm

    I think #878 makes matters worse.

  285. Kev

    larma: That bit, yes.

  286. Ge0rG

    I agree with ralphm on #878, it's not helping

  287. larma

    I think #878 reflects the truth though

  288. jonas’

    Proposed wording (in a separate box at the top): > This specification is currently under special review by the XSF for potential encumberance as per XEP-0001 § X Objective 4. New implementations are discouraged while work is in progress to replace large portions of this document.

  289. Ge0rG

    jonas’: do we have a hard time limit on the Council Meeting?

  290. ralphm

    jonas’, +1

  291. jonas’

    I would simply instruct the editor to inject that wording.

  292. jonas’

    do we need a vote on this?

  293. jonas’

    if so, I’m obviously +1

  294. Ge0rG

    jonas’: +1 on this wording

  295. dwd

    jonas’, I won't block this, indeed I'll vote as a better-than-nothing.

  296. dwd

    But I suspect we need a better fix for this, longer term, so I'll propose something policy-ish on the list later on today.

  297. larma

    jonas’, funny, add "New implementations are discouraged" to experimental XEPs. It's what experimental already mens

  298. larma


  299. jonas’

    looking at the clock, I further propose that:

  300. jonas’

    We let the topic of demoting OMEMO rest for another few weeks (until after FOSDEM) to see how the SIG-E2EE plays out on this topic.

  301. pep.

    It meets after FOSDEM so probably not much progress

  302. ralphm

    larma: well, arguably we experimented and found issues that warrent this notice.

  303. jonas’

    larma, I can also leave that part out and burn new implementors for no good reason /s

  304. jonas’

    moving on

  305. dwd

    BTW, on the SIG-E2EE, did anything happen about my remark over the "representation" point?

  306. pep.

    At the IETF etc.?

  307. jonas’

    dwd, not that I know, I need to look into the documents, too, didn’t get around to do it since last week

  308. jonas’

    which leads me to:

  309. jonas’

    4) Outstanding Votes

  310. jonas’

    Three ProtoXEP votes are expiring today

  311. daniel

    dwd, to be clear you just want an additional footnote that representation may only happen by approved members or something? while the sig itself is open to the public?

  312. dwd

    pep., I mean at all. We've not allowed non-members to "represent" the XSF in any form before, and even members have tended to need Board permission.

  313. dwd

    daniel, Right, that.

  314. pep.

    I think that's explicit in 002 no?

  315. pep.

    Surely we can add a note

  316. daniel

    that can be arranged i guess

  317. daniel

    i'll talk to paul after the meeting

  318. dwd

    Sounds good.

  319. jonas’

    dwd, Zash, Ge0rG, daniel: quick show of hands of the council if we can extend by 15 mins, otherwise I need to call for order and move on with the agenda

  320. Zash

    Is there a leader for the proposed SIG-E2EE?

  321. dwd

    I'm happy to extend.

  322. ralphm

    Yes, we can establish liasons, if there needs to be some kind of official representation, but I don't think we need that for IETF at this point.

  323. daniel

    yes please extend by 15

  324. dwd

    ralphm, MLS, perhaps.

  325. pep.

    dwd, also note that SIGs have no authority, so whoever represents them doesn't actually matter does it

  326. Zash

    jonas’: sure.

  327. Ge0rG

    jonas’: +1

  328. ralphm

    I will ask about funding people going to IETF in Board tomorrow.

  329. jonas’


  330. dwd

    pep., Internally? Not really. Externally? Yes.

  331. jonas’

    retroactively 4a) SIG- E2EE

  332. ralphm

    The thing holding back SIG-E2EE right now is appointing its leadership.

  333. ralphm

    I am not sure if I've seen suggestions there.

  334. sonny has left

  335. pep.

    Well there's an obvious one which is the author

  336. dwd

    pep., That's Paul as in vanitasvitae, correct?

  337. pep.


  338. dwd

    pep., Sounds like a solid choice.

  339. vanitasvitae


  340. pep.

    vanitasvitae, yes you!

  341. vanitasvitae

    I didn't do it!

  342. Ge0rG

    vanitasvitae: do you volunteer as leader of SIG-E2EE?

  343. Ge0rG

    ralphm: isn't appointing the leader a Board thing?

  344. vanitasvitae

    yes I can do that

  345. jonas’

    (FTR, I’m holding back here since I still haven’t figured out how SIGs work and I need to read the documents and bylaws. I’m thus still on-list on that one)

  346. ralphm

    No, in this case, whoever proposes the SIG can provide names for the leadership and Council can give its blessing.

  347. ralphm

    The only requirement is Membership.

  348. ralphm

    (of the XSF)

  349. jonas’


  350. Ge0rG

    which is given according to https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-05-28#Announcement_of_Voting_Results

  351. jonas’

    anything else on the SIG-E2EE topic we need to discuss in this meeting?

  352. dwd

    Does it only become an active SIG when the XEP becomes Active?

  353. jonas’

    dwd, one of the many questions I have around SIGs which I intend to research

  354. ralphm

    I think so.

  355. dwd

    And does it therefore need a Last Call etc as well as mere adoption?

  356. jonas’

    sounds like way overhead

  357. jonas’

    but I’d like to note that other SIGs have different XEP types which are not described in XEP-0001

  358. dwd

    jonas’, Yup. I think we've probably over-discussed the SIG formation at this stage in this case.

  359. Ge0rG

    jonas’: would it make sense on making Paul the leader?

  360. jonas’

    Ge0rG, before even accepting the SIG?

  361. Ge0rG

    on voting to make

  362. jonas’

    I don’t think so

  363. Ge0rG


  364. vanitasvitae

    (when preparing sig-e2ee I basically copied from sig-iot, so some mistakes I made may also apply to this xep)

  365. jonas’

    4b) Outstanding votes on three other ProtoXEPs

  366. jonas’

    I see that Ge0rG cast a few votes on-list, but there are still open votes by me notably

  367. ralphm

    jonas’, I'd be happy for modifications to XEP-0002 to better document things.

  368. jonas’

    I’m +1 on MAM FC going ot experimental

  369. jonas’

    I’m also +1 on Fallback Indication going to experimental

  370. jonas’

    I’ll still be on-list about SIG-E2EE as mentioned

  371. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  372. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  373. daniel


  374. dwd


  375. Zash


  376. jonas’

    does not actually work for me

  377. jonas’

    I’m on a event at that time, so we’ll need a replacement chair.

  378. jonas’

    I promise to cast my SIG-E2EE vote befoer that meeting though

  379. jonas’

    does anyone volunteer?

  380. dwd

    jonas’, I can if you do the agenda.

  381. Ge0rG

    I'm on an event as well, but maybe I'll be able to look into this MUC in parallel

  382. jonas’

    dwd, I’ll try :)

  383. jonas’

    (should work tho, as usual)

  384. dwd

    I will, though, miss +2w I think due to travel.

  385. jonas’

    6) AOB

  386. jonas’

    6a) Ge0rG wants to talk about https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/874

  387. jonas’ hands Ge0rG the mic

  388. daniel

    yes +2w will be problematic for me (and probably others) as well. but we can discuss this next week

  389. Ge0rG

    jonas’: thanks

  390. Ge0rG

    actually, about https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036848.html

  391. Ge0rG

    Marc asked for feedback from the wider community on this change, and it's also controversial, albeit less so than the previous hack of the IBR non-dataform form

  392. ralphm

    jonas’, on the SIG-E2EE XEP, accepting it as Experimental is different from voting it as Active. I'm not even sure an LC is needed, and am a bit surprised that XEP-0001 is not more clear on this for types other than Standards Track.

  393. ralphm

    (wow lag)

  394. daniel

    client side i had no problems implementing that

  395. Ge0rG

    I'm using a pre-IBR unauthenticated IQ to have the server assign a preauth token to my current non-session, and then to use that token in IBR

  396. daniel

    if that's the kind of feedback you are looking for

  397. Ge0rG

    I was made aware that doing pre-auth IQs in servers is BAD.

  398. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I don’t like the decoupling, seems like weird state to keep on the server side

  399. Ge0rG

    jonas’: me neither. but it's very straightforward to implement ;)

  400. jonas’

    is it?

  401. Ge0rG

    for client devs :P

  402. jonas’


  403. Ge0rG

    I'd have been fine with stuffing the <preauth/> element right into IBR, but...

  404. jonas’

    I don’t like this flow and consider it weird. I don’t see a reason not to stuff preauth into a newly namespaced child of IBR to be honest

  405. jonas’

    but on this matter, I’m not going to stand in the way of implementation experience

  406. Ge0rG

    jonas’: stuffing things into IBR leads to the "but dataforms" discussion

  407. jonas’

    Ge0rG, not with me it doesn’t

  408. dwd

    FWIW, I suggested ages ago that IBR etc would be better done by authenticating anonymously and then doing the IBR, and then reconnecting.

  409. daniel

    that doesn’t solve that problem though, does it?

  410. jonas’

    dwd, I’d find that confusing for different reasons.

  411. dwd

    daniel, I don't know. It certanly moves it about.

  412. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'd like to make some progress in this decade

  413. Ge0rG

    we also have SASL2 on the table

  414. jonas’

    (specifically, "does a server offering ANONYOMOUS mean that I can register that way or is it simply for anonymously joining some MUC?")

  415. jonas’

    In the end, this is Experimental. We can easily rebase on SASL2 before moving on to Draft

  416. jonas’

    so again, I’m not going to stand in the way of implementation experience here, I’ll just say I find it weird.

  417. Ge0rG

    my purely pragmatic opinion is that in the long term, we should reinvent IBR by means of SASL2, but in the short term just do whatever hacks work today

  418. pep.

    OMEMO easy? /troll.

  419. jonas’

    input from the server side (looking at you, Zash) makes sense probably

  420. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I can get on board with that

  421. Ge0rG

    jonas’: that got implemented in https://modules.prosody.im/mod_easy_invite.html

  422. jonas’

    (for certain definitions of whatever)

  423. Zash

    I've discussed with Ge0rG previously

  424. jonas’


  425. Ge0rG

    I'm sure we have more server devs in the Council

  426. jonas’

    am I summarizing correctly if I say that noone is truly happy with this, but it works and we hope for SASL2?

  427. daniel

    i think ejabberd is traditionally more careful with session states such as that

  428. daniel

    so we probably should ask them

  429. susmit88 has joined

  430. daniel

    (their clustering and stuff makes that more complicated; also memory is expensive)

  431. jonas’

    *recommend Marc to ask them

  432. Zash

    We had sooooo many hacks in Prosody to accomodate pre-auth iq stanzas

  433. Ge0rG

    daniel: would you like to, or is it sufficient if I bump that on Holger?

  434. jonas’

    daniel, I’m not sure this is important in this case since the state is bound to a single session which cannot even be resumed on a different node, but I don’t know the details tehre

  435. daniel

    jonas’, yes maybe. i haven’t thought that all the way through

  436. daniel

    > *recommend Marc to ask them +1

  437. Ge0rG

    dwd: do you have an opinion that would result in a -1?

  438. jonas’

    (noting that council dosen’t even vote on this)

  439. daniel

    it's experimental anyway

  440. sonny has joined

  441. jonas’

    alright, moving on

  442. Ge0rG

    jonas’: Council will eventually have to vote on it, though

  443. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes, but hopefully we’ve got SASL2 by then ;)

  444. jonas’

    any further discussion on this proposal can be held in xsf@, no need to have it in this meeting

  445. daniel

    (note that i have much bigger issues with 'easy xmpp', cc Ge0rG)

  446. jonas’

    Is there any other any other business we need to discuss?

  447. dwd

    Ge0rG, I think I'm +0

  448. dwd

    Ge0rG, Or would be if we were voting.

  449. Ge0rG

    dwd: awesome, thanks.

  450. dwd

    Ge0rG, But I'll quite possibly kill it at Proposed if it stays this way.

  451. Ge0rG

    dwd: SASL2!

  452. dwd

    Ge0rG, I am doing my level best to make that a reality.

  453. dwd

    Ge0rG, And, as seems to be the vogue, I note that I am not paid to do that.

  454. Ge0rG

    I'm also not paid to do preauth, so it looks like we are a good match.

  455. jonas’

    we need more VC

  456. jonas’

    Is there any other any other business we need to discuss?

  457. daniel

    not from my side

  458. Zash

    none here

  459. dwd

    Nor from me.

  460. jonas’


  461. Ge0rG

    We also need more time. We are over the overtime already.

  462. jonas’

    then, thanks for participating and sorry for the chaotic meeting

  463. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  464. Ge0rG

    thank you, jonas’

  465. Ge0rG

    it was a dense one.

  466. Ge0rG &

  467. susmit88 has left

  468. susmit88 has joined

  469. kusoneko has left

  470. kusoneko has joined

  471. sonny has left

  472. Zash has left

  473. Zash has joined

  474. Zash has left

  475. Zash has joined

  476. sonny has joined

  477. sonny has left

  478. blackbook has joined

  479. sonny has joined

  480. blackbook has left

  481. debacle has left

  482. sonny has left

  483. susmit88 has left

  484. susmit88 has joined

  485. sonny has joined

  486. susmit88 has left

  487. susmit88 has joined

  488. sonny has left

  489. Wojtek has left

  490. susmit88 has left

  491. daniel has left

  492. susmit88 has joined

  493. daniel has joined

  494. Wojtek has joined

  495. susmit88 has left

  496. Wojtek has left

  497. susmit88 has joined

  498. susmit88 has left

  499. susmit88 has joined

  500. sonny has joined

  501. sonny has left

  502. sonny has joined

  503. debacle has joined

  504. blackbook has joined

  505. sonny has left

  506. sonny has joined

  507. blackbook has left

  508. sonny has left

  509. sonny has joined

  510. sonny has left

  511. sonny has joined

  512. Max has left

  513. Max has joined

  514. paul has left

  515. paul has joined

  516. paul has left

  517. paul has joined

  518. paul has left

  519. paul has joined

  520. paul has left

  521. paul has joined

  522. sonny has left

  523. susmit88 has left

  524. susmit88 has joined

  525. susmit88 has left

  526. susmit88 has joined

  527. sonny has joined

  528. undefined has left

  529. sonny has left

  530. daniel has left

  531. sonny has joined

  532. daniel has joined

  533. susmit88 has left

  534. susmit88 has joined

  535. blackbook has joined

  536. Tobias has left

  537. daniel has left

  538. undefined has joined

  539. sonny has left

  540. blackbook has left

  541. daniel has joined

  542. Max has left

  543. Max has joined

  544. susmit88 has left

  545. susmit88 has joined

  546. sonny has joined

  547. susmit88 has left

  548. susmit88 has joined

  549. sonny has left

  550. sonny has joined

  551. daniel has left

  552. daniel has joined

  553. stpeter has left

  554. daniel has left

  555. blackbook has joined

  556. blackbook has left

  557. dwd has left

  558. blackbook has joined

  559. daniel has joined

  560. susmit88 has left

  561. susmit88 has joined

  562. sonny has left

  563. daniel has left

  564. blackbook has left

  565. daniel has joined

  566. blackbook has joined

  567. susmit88 has left

  568. blackbook has left

  569. susmit88 has joined

  570. sonny has joined

  571. debacle has left

  572. debacle has joined

  573. blackbook has joined

  574. debacle has left

  575. debacle has joined

  576. susmit88 has left

  577. susmit88 has joined

  578. daniel has left

  579. blackbook has left

  580. blackbook has joined