jonas’- Expired calls:
- LC for XEP-0280 expired without feedback.
- Calls in progress:
- LC for XEP-0320 (ends at 2020-05-19)
- LC for XEP-0339 (ends at 2020-05-19)
jonas’+ a protoxep
jonas’4) Items for Voting
Ge0rGI wonder why nobody commented on Carbons.
jonas’4a) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0280: Message Carbons
jonas’everyone is worn out about that probably
Ge0rGI'm torn about it.
ZashI just started looking at carbons (the code) again recently
danielyes. i don’t even have an opinion on that anymore
Ge0rGI like most of the XEP, except for this one line:
> it contains payload elements typically used in IM (...)
Ge0rGPersonally, I'd rather roll back Carbons and fix message routing, than entrench the mess. But that's not going to happen, so... 🤷
ZashIt's already entrenched tho
ZashIM-NG can obsolete it when it's ready :)
danielGe0rG, well some time before the summit I thought so too. (see my emails from january) but after more discussions during summit I came to the conclusion that im-ng isn’t going to be easy either
danieland share a lot of the problems with carbons
jonas’it won’t indeed
ZashIs anything ever easy?
jonas’though having clear semantics is a good start
Ge0rGdaniel: right. My hope was that we can invest some work into Carbons to make IM-NG profit from the rules later on
Ge0rGjonas’: yes, the fallback rules would be only for legacy-interop
danielyes we won’t get around of defining some ruleset probably
danielor start over with the whole pubsub mess
danielsorry; rambling; all that is to say that i don’t know what to do with carbons status wise at the moment
ZashWith my Implementer Hat on, I have something slightly different from the rules in the XEP now, which might be better, or not. Going to need some time and deployment experinece with it I think.
Ge0rGdaniel: you could check whether §6.1 is sufficient and adequate for all your use cases.
danieldoes it cover jingle messages?
Ge0rGZash: that sounds like we should postpone advancing Carbons
Ge0rGdaniel: are jingle messages of type=chat?
danielwell you can make everything type chat
ZashAnd/or extend the LC, tho I'm not sure I'll have energy to post about it in the next to weeks either.
danielbut usually (following the examples from the xep) they are not
Ge0rGor is jingle one of the gazillion XEPs that don't define an appropriate message type?
Ge0rGI want Carbons and MAM sync to become type=headline
ZashOne thing: The new mod_carbons acts on anything that's been archived.
danielConversations makes them type chat to get around 6.1 rules
danielbut arguably they probably maybe shouldn’t be?
Ge0rGdaniel: what about fixing §6.1 rules instead?
Ge0rGZash ~volunteered~ proposed to fix https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html
jonas’I wonder whether we need a routing-WG like we had (have) an E2EE WG
danielbut yeah that's the point? so do we have to touch 280 every time there is a new xep around?
Zashjonas’, good idea
danieland subsequently all implementations
Ge0rGI suppose Carbons has no meaning outside of IM anyway, and Jingle is kinda-sorta-IM now
jonas’daniel, supposedly, since you send to bare-JID (under IM-NG rules) this would be broadcast
Ge0rGjonas’: that would be good
jonas’daniel, supposedly, since you send to bare-JID (under IM-NG rules) this would be multicast to all resources
Zashalso, is there a Jingle WG that could comment on this batch of Jingle XEPs?
jonas’which is one of the key reasons for IM-NG, so that we don’t have to touch things every time a new protocol comes aroundy
danielbut because of backward compat you still have to have rules
Ge0rGis there any single implementation of `urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0` ?
jonas’I see a few people who have a certain share in implementations (daniel, Holger, Zash, Ge0rG, someone from the Dino folks, lovetox) which could sit down for a sprint and work out rules for different use cases.
Ge0rGdaniel: yes, and we need to define those rules
jonas’and who could drive IM-NG forward
jonas’I think this is most direly needed
Ge0rGjonas’: I agree.
jonas’daniel, you have the compliance checker to pressure people to deploy an update
ZashGe0rG, I /think/ Prosody actually does something very close to the rules in the XEP
Ge0rGmost of the rules we sort out will apply equally to IM-NG, Carbons and MAM
ZashAs in, the stable release. Trunk now does something else.
jonas’can someone of you folks take the hat for this sprint?
Ge0rGZash: the delta would be a good addition to the 0280 LC
jonas’because we won’t solve this in this session.
jonas’I’ll be happy to move 280 back to Experimental in that case
Ge0rGI'm not good at organizing.
jonas’Zash, thank you very much
daniel+1 moving it back
Ge0rGBut I'm motivated to bring 0280 + IM-NG rules into a sane state
jonas’I can offer a jitsi meet instance for a virtual meeting, though I suppose you’ll find other instances, too
jonas’so Zash will organize a virtual(?) sprint on that one; please announce it on standards@ and also ping ejabberd, dino and gajim devs at least
Zashjonas’, +1 for back to experimental.
Zashalso +1 to whoever invents <in-reply to=id/>
jonas’Zash, was that in implicit "I didn’t want to volunteer for organizing this!!!"
jonas’ok, then I’ll step up to try to get everyone on a table, but I won’t actively participate most likely
jonas’4b) Request LC for XEP-0393: Message Styling
Abstract: This specification defines a formatted text syntax for use in instant messages with simple text styling.
ZashLC all the XEPs?!
jonas’4c) Proposed XMPP Extension: Channel Binding Pseudomechanisms
Abstract: A method for advertising and negotiating types of channel binding
supported by SCRAM based SASL mechanisms.
jonas’even more so than with the previous spec about password storage, I’m fairly certain that this needs to be addressed on the IETF-level
jonas’-1, even more so than with the previous spec about password storage, I’m fairly certain that this needs to be addressed on the IETF-level
ZashI approve of the general goal tho.
daniel> I approve of the general goal tho.
jonas’hm, I’m changing my vote to on-list.
jonas’I have to read it more closely
SamWhitedThis will *never* be addressed at the IETF level, FWIW. The XMPP WG is shut down and this is protocol specific.
jonas’SamWhited, yeah, I just realised that
jonas’so going on-list, because I’m not sure that mangling the mechanism names is a great way to do that
danielBut the approach feels wrong
jonas’yeah, a lot wrong
jonas’if only we had namespaced attributes
danielIf only we had namespace attributes
ZashI'd like to have Dave around to discuss this one
jonas’let’s not discuss protocol specifics in this meeting; I’m assuming you’re on list too, daniel?
danielYes on list
jonas’5) Outstanding Votes
I lied in the email, there are no outstanding votes.
jonas’6) Date of Next
ZashSamWhited, starting the XMPP WG up is a thing we can do if needed AFAIK
jonas’+1w could be tricky for me
daniel(pretty sure I'm -1 but I want to elaborate more on list)
jonas’there is the RIPE General Meeting and I was appointed responsible for doing on behalf of my company which is a LIR there
jonas’I’m not sure what the schedule is and when I’m expected to participate there, so I can’t say for sure I can chair the meeting here
jonas’I’ll prepare an agenda on tuesday, who volunteers to chair?
SamWhitedPlease let's have a discussion on list before you all finish voting if possible. I'm open to being convinced of alternative methods, but the ones I could think of were much more obnoxious to implement or required major modifications to our SASL profile (which is not likely to happen)
jonas’SamWhited, I’m going to reply on-list soon
SamWhitedBut I also knew this method would be an uphill fight :)
ZashSomething something XEP-0388
SamWhitedshuts up and lets you finish the meeting.
jonas’we’re at Date of Next, and we need a chair for next week
danieli can chair
Zashso +1w then
jonas’none from me
ZashACK, FIN, RST
dwdWell, taken me all afternoon, but I can apparently get in this room again.
Ge0rGdwd: how many yaks did you shave today?
dwdNot enough. I don't *think* I can connect outbound and establish TLS to this server, and I do not understand why.
dwdZash, As in xmpp.xmpp.org. But not just this one, cerdale.zash.se is the same.
ZashIf mine doesn't want to talk to you it should send you a <stream:error> with the reason
dwdTLS negotiation fails, though, so no opportunity.
ZashI see you → here connections, but unencrypted in the other direction
dwdRight, because Openfire can actually fallback to retry without TLS.
dwdWhich is what's happened here I think.
Zashfor reverse connections?
jonas’May 06 15:12:15 s2sin5578e86691d0 debug Incoming s2s received <stream:stream xmlns='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' version='1.0' to='xmpp.org' from='dave.cridland.net'>
May 06 15:12:15 s2sin5578e86691d0 debug Sending[s2sin_unauthed]: <stream:stream id='3bdeff5f-b26a-4635-a2d6-1d37c1ab1db9' xml:lang='en' xmlns='jabber:server' to='dave.cridland.net' xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback' version='1.0' xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' from='xmpp.org'>
May 06 15:12:16 s2sin5578e86691d0 debug Incoming s2s received <stream:stream xmlns='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' version='1.0' to='xmpp.org' from='dave.cridland.net'>
May 06 15:12:16 x509 debug Cert dNSName dave.cridland.net matched hostname
May 06 15:12:16 s2sin5578e86691d0 debug Sending[s2sin_unauthed]: <stream:stream id='57b0f2aa-5f41-4a53-ba20-3e5c8686952a' xml:lang='en' xmlns='jabber:server' to='dave.cridland.net' xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback' version='1.0' xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' from='xmpp.org'>
May 06 15:12:16 s2sin5578e86691d0 info Incoming s2s stream dave.cridland.net->xmpp.org closed: stream closed
May 06 15:12:16 s2sin5578e86691d0 debug Destroying incoming session dave.cridland.net->xmpp.org
jonas’that doesn’t seem useful
dwdSorry, distracted by Atlassian apparently having a dodgy cert on their cloud hosting.
ZashI see some failed attepmts at dialback and some timeouts
dwdThat would have been earlier, I suspect.
Zashafter what jonas’ posted
SamWhitedI get a *lot* of errors from your server as well, dwd. Mostly useless things about being unable to connect.
ZashMay 06 15:13:46 s2sout5578e7a3df20 debug Destroying incomplete session xmpp.org->dave.cridland.net due to inactivity
ZashMay 06 15:12:17 s2sout5578e7a3df20 debug sent dialback key on outgoing s2s stream
Ge0rGTLS version mismatch?
Ge0rGsomething like TLS 1.0 vs TLS 1.2? dh keys?
jonas’2020/05/06 17:54:43 failed to probe c2s to xmpp:cridland.net: dial tcp 220.127.116.11:5269: connect: connection refused
dwdYeah, not cridland.net
jonas’also, why does it write c2s
dwdAnyway. More usefully:
ZashHuh, but this one is TLS'd
dwdXEP-0280 - I thought we'd discussed this in the Summit and come to some kind of conclusion abotu moving the routing rules themselves into a new XEP, that would be pointed to by IM-NG on the basis that IM-NG was Carbons with better PR^Wsyntax?
ZashMay 06 15:12:17 s2sout5578e7a3df20 debug Sending[s2sout_unauthed]: <stream:stream xml:lang='en' xmlns='jabber:server' to='dave.cridland.net' ...
May 06 15:12:17 s2sout5578e7a3df20 info Stream encrypted (TLSv1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384)
dwdYeah, from * -> dave.cridland.net it negotiates TLSv1.3 and AES etc.
ZashThen it does dialback, which times out. Then some time later it tries again
dwd4a) On-list, I need to look at what was discussed at the Summit.
jonas’I admit I speculated you’d take time to vote on 4b so that we don’t have three LCs starting within just 24 hours ;-)
jonas’still, welcome back
dwd4c) I'm somewhat torn about this. It's a revolting syntax, but I wonder if just listing channel bindings, and mandating that sorry, but if you offer it for one it's offered for all mechanisms, might be preferable. As to whether this lives here or IETF, I'm inclined to say it lives here - as Sam notes, XMPP-WG is dead, and KITTEN is probably not ideal, though definitely worth talking to Simon Josefsson there as he's discussed this kind fo thing before quite recently. So Sorta +1 but dear dog can we change this?
jonas’dwd, I think quite similar as you do, and I think we should discuss those specifics on-list
dwdBy which I mean, on-list to give me some time to think, but if it weren't using pseudo-mechanisms I'd be a firm +1.
pep.If only we had namespace attributes
dwdI'm not sure those help here.
dwdScribbled that listwards, and I'll vote +1 on 4c).
ZashI'm not sure how I feel about "(oh btw channel bindings in TLS 1.3 are undefined)" hidden away in an appendix in an RFC that doesn't update the channel binding document.
dwdZash, Channel bindings are in general a bit stalled. I think the XMPP community is the only group that really cares, sometimes, and we're not very vocal within the IETF, so they probably don't realise there's interest.
SamWhitedThe two channel bindings it's talking about are broken anyways, and I assume even more broken on TLS 1.3 because they won't work in-0RTT mode (I think)
SamWhitedI'm only guessing, but I assume that's why they decided to just say that they're undefined. Libraries won't be able to give you the data half the time, or even worse, they will try to give you non-unique data
ZashFound a single thread from 2015 discussing it
SamWhitedLink? I didn't find anything when I looked
dwdSamWhited, And by the way, you're doing a great job in KITTEN, pushing this stuff. It probably feels like you're getting nowhere, but I think it's making an impact slowly - but the recent last-minute-virtual IETF meeting has probably drained people of energy.
SamWhiteddwd: thanks; I was worried I was beign a pest, I never know how the IETF works or how much I should stay on top of things
ZashSamWhited, not sure which thread it was but a couple of threads from 2015-2016 pop up in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&start_date=&end_date=&email_list=tls&email_list=kitten&q=text%3A%28channel+binding%29&as=1
SamWhitedOh hey, if I filter by date and list there's a whole topic called "Deprecating tls-unique for TLS 1.3". Dunno why I never realized there was a convenient list-only search that doesn't involve Google or DDG or whatever.
ZashThis is a pretty great mailing list interface indeed. I wish we used it for our lists.
SamWhitedAha, and it mentions an old draft name I never found by searching either!
SamWhitedHopefully I can find discussion on that and finally know what had been done towards this in the past. It's just about impossible to dig information out of the IETF.
ZashI think I searched for the channel binding RFC number as well last time
SamWhitedThis works almost exactly the same as how mine did originally, that's encouraging (or maybe not, since it just dissapeared in 2015 and I'm not sure why yet)
SamWhitedsorry, the other draft I found in that email thread that expired in 2015: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-sasl-tls-cb-03
SamWhitedThe author amusingly responded to the other I-D I have out right now, but not the emails to KITTEN and TLS about the channel binding draft, so I pinged him to ask him about the history of it and what not.