XMPP Council - 2021-04-14

  1. B has left
  2. B has joined
  3. paul has left
  4. debacle has left
  5. vaulor has left
  6. vaulor has joined
  7. SouL has joined
  8. Syndace has left
  9. Syndace has joined
  10. moparisthebest has left
  11. moparisthebest has joined
  12. moparisthebest has left
  13. moparisthebest has joined
  14. moparisthebest has left
  15. moparisthebest has joined
  16. moparisthebest has left
  17. vaulor has left
  18. moparisthebest has joined
  19. moparisthebest has left
  20. moparisthebest has joined
  21. SouL has left
  22. Syndace has left
  23. Syndace has joined
  24. paul has joined
  25. Tobias has joined
  26. B has left
  27. moparisthebest has left
  28. moparisthebest has joined
  29. moparisthebest has left
  30. moparisthebest has joined
  31. moparisthebest has left
  32. moparisthebest has joined
  33. moparisthebest has left
  34. moparisthebest has joined
  35. moparisthebest has left
  36. moparisthebest has joined
  37. moparisthebest has left
  38. moparisthebest has joined
  39. moparisthebest has left
  40. moparisthebest has joined
  41. Guus has joined
  42. Syndace has left
  43. Syndace has joined
  44. Guus has left
  45. SouL has joined
  46. vaulor has joined
  47. debacle has joined
  48. paul has left
  49. paul has joined
  50. ralphm has joined
  51. mdosch has left
  52. mdosch has joined
  53. Wojtek has joined
  54. Zash has left
  55. Zash has joined
  56. Zash has left
  57. Zash has joined
  58. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  59. Zash Here
  60. dwd Cheese today please.
  61. jonas’ cheeese .... sounds great
  62. Ge0rG good morning
  63. daniel Hi
  64. jonas’ full house \o/
  65. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  66. Ge0rG dwd: no cheese for you, https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/
  67. Ge0rG I'd like to AOB my 0280 LC
  68. jonas’ OK
  69. jonas’ I’m hungry now
  70. jonas’ so expect that I rush through the meeting :P
  71. dwd Ge0rG, I am not Dutch though, so I still get cheese I think.
  72. jonas’ (only to sit here waiting until dinnertime...)
  73. Ge0rG dwd: something something global logistics
  74. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update
  75. jonas’ we now have BibLaTeX, citations in XEPs, so that’s nice
  76. dwd Ge0rG, Brexit means Brexit, we have no global logistics anymore anyway.
  77. jonas’ 4) Items for Voting
  78. Ge0rG jonas’: great!
  79. jonas’ none I think?
  80. jonas’ yep, none
  81. jonas’ 5) Pending Votes
  82. jonas’ dwd, any update on the '13 deprecation from you?
  83. Ge0rG should we construct an elaborate algorithm for the pre-conditions on which to +1 either 0280 or 0313?
  84. dwd Yes, I'll vote +1, acknowledging that there are bits that are useful and not present in Simple Blocking and Invisibility.
  85. Sam ticks off one of the XEPs on his list of old confusing ones that are lingering and goes to check what's next
  86. jonas’ dwd, thanks!
  87. jonas’ now for '280 and '313, a bunch of people (including me) are pending on those
  88. Ge0rG Sam: you need to fix the breakage of 0013 first :P
  89. Sam Ge0rG: we should talk afterwards in xsf@ about that
  90. Ge0rG Still no server developer feedback on urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0
  91. dwd So after I dashed off last week, I see Ge0rG suggested having strict rules on what gets archived in '313. Equally, these exist in '280 and there is, as Ge0rG says, no server dev feedback on these.
  92. jonas’ invokes Zash for server feedback
  93. Ge0rG Is Zash the only server developer in the XSF?
  94. Zash I've probably written that feedback in some Prosody issue comment.
  95. dwd He's not even the only server dev on Council...
  96. Zash Should those rules really be enshrined into '280 and '313?
  97. Zash They will inevitably need to be updated to account for new payloads in the future.
  98. Ge0rG dwd: I'd love to hear feedback on urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0 from *all* server developers, but *especially* from those on Council
  99. Ge0rG Zash: that's why they got their own namespace version that can be bumped.
  100. Ge0rG That's actually an outcome of the last LC discussion that I consider as elegant in retrospect
  101. Ge0rG as elegant as is possible with the hack that Carbons is.
  102. Zash Apply the same thing with '313 then?
  103. dwd So we could fish them out into their own XEP, advance '280 and '313, and have ${NEW_XEP} reference the two and add the strict rules in?
  104. jonas’ + the cloud notify stuff
  105. Ge0rG dwd: I'm sure we could fish them out after advancing 0280
  106. dwd But I suspect there's a core of people who would be unhappy with Carbons advancing without them.
  107. Zash > It's unclear to me what messages would have IM payloads but are not be type = chat|normal|groupchat. We don't want to carbon type=groupchat that happens to have chatstates for example. from https://issues.prosody.im/1486
  108. Ge0rG And I'm not going to advance 0313 until these rules are written down *somewhere*
  109. daniel It might not sure they are going to have the same rules
  110. jonas’ I also don’t see an issue with breaking them out of carbons as they’re "scoped" with their own namespace already
  111. daniel I'm not sure they are going to have the same rules
  112. jonas’ daniel, nobody said that the rules XEP has to define the same rules for both
  113. Zash Cloud? Who said cloud?
  114. jonas’ sorry, clown notify
  115. jonas’ a.k.a. GSPPWS (Global Surprise Party Pre Warning System)
  116. jonas’ a.k.a. GSPEWS (Global Surprise Party Early Warning System)
  117. Ge0rG jonas’: bringing in clowns is the opposite of your statet goal of rushing through this meeting.
  118. Ge0rG jonas’: bringing in clowns is the opposite of your stated goal of rushing through this meeting.
  119. jonas’ I didn’t say it was a goal, I said it would happen ;P
  120. dwd Bringing in clowns is what the AGM is for, anyway.
  121. Zash I'm not convinced that the processing rules for all these things need to be identical.
  122. jonas’ and I think that having a central place to look at routing rules in the pre-2.0 world is a good thing™
  123. Ge0rG I'm convinced they must not be identical.
  124. Zash Doesn't even make sense in some cases, as they apply to different subsets of stanzas.
  125. Zash There will be overlap tho
  126. Ge0rG And subtle differences
  127. Ge0rG But we are not going to know until somebody writes them down
  128. Zash User MAM vs MUC MAM for example
  129. Ge0rG which kind of requires server developer feedback.
  130. Zash What kind of feedback tho?
  131. Zash I can repeat what Prosody (trunk) does, which I think is sensible at this time.
  132. larma has left
  133. larma has joined
  134. Ge0rG Zash: can you repeat it in a way that's clearly understandable in the context of XEP-0280, instead of in the context of #1486?
  135. Ge0rG ...on list
  136. daniel Presumably server devs don't care about the rules. It's the client devs who should know what messages they want under which circumstances
  137. Zash Maybe the clients should upload a firewall script to the server? 😀
  138. Kev My limited experience so far of clients trying to say what they want stored is that it’s a disaster :)
  139. dwd daniel, I'm not sure that's true either. There are different considerations, perhaps, but both sides very much care.
  140. Ge0rG daniel: don't remind me of the nights I've spent debugging corner cases of "that message didn't arrive on this device - why?"
  141. jonas’ So what’s our way forward here?
  142. jonas’ Is this another instance of "the problem is too complex to tackle with our resources"?
  143. Ge0rG contractually oblige server developers to respond to my emails?
  144. dwd Well, my view is that "What should servers store" is actually a different issue to "how should clients obtain what is stored".
  145. jonas’ Ge0rG, will you pay them? ;)
  146. dwd XEP-0313 concentrates primarily on the latter, and seems to be stable and worthwhile.
  147. jonas’ dwd, not wrong, but we need someone to write down "what should servers store" in a document
  148. dwd jonas’, But does it need to be this document?
  149. dwd jonas’, And, indeed, now?
  150. Ge0rG dwd: yes and yes.
  151. Ge0rG not having this information inside of 0280 has caused many years of frustration, incompatibility and people missing some messages.
  152. jonas’ dwd, I don’t think it needs to be in '313
  153. jonas’ Ge0rG, no, that was "not having the information anywhere" as opposed to "not having the information in '280"
  154. Zash Store *everything* and deliver a subset in queries is also a thing you could do
  155. Ge0rG Zash: but then we need a definition of what subset to deliver.
  156. Zash Some kind of firewall rules you upload...
  157. dwd Ge0rG, Do you think no confusion and frustration has been generated by having Carbons, MAM, etc in Experimental for so long?
  158. Zash (Not serious, actually a Matrix reference)
  159. Zash But deep-stanza matching is something MAM could use.
  160. Ge0rG dwd: my point is that the knowledge is *there*, but not in a document
  161. Ge0rG not writing it down now will just prolong the pain
  162. Ge0rG and I consider "what kind of information will this query return" as a very important part of a protocol.
  163. jonas’ Ge0rG, but you also think that the rules need to be adapted
  164. jonas’ I think having that in a separate (maybe Informational?) document makes more sense under that consideration
  165. jonas’ for either
  166. Ge0rG jonas’: ..by servers?
  167. Zash Each new XEP may need to declare how it should affect carbons/mam/etc and then we summarize that somewhere?
  168. jonas’ "Routing Considerations"
  169. Ge0rG Zash: not disagreeing in principle.
  170. Ge0rG Except, we need to just make routing an explicit part of... routing.
  171. Ge0rG And we are 70% there with message type and bare/full JID
  172. jonas’ Ok, I don’t see this going anywhere
  173. Zash IM-NG!
  174. jonas’ we’ve gone full circle again
  175. Zash 😀
  176. Zash So, shall I translate mod_carbons into email and send that?
  177. jonas’ if it makes Ge0rG happy
  178. Ge0rG Zash: please translate it into a delta on 0280.
  179. Ge0rG with rationale
  180. dwd cries silently.
  181. jonas’ I am +1 on '313 and '280 based on running code and it works good enough
  182. Ge0rG when does 313 expire?
  183. jonas’ Ge0rG, it did
  184. jonas’ oh, the vote
  185. jonas’ next week I think
  186. jonas’ we can write down rules in a separate document, and any future changes to such rules should go into a separate "legacy routing rules" document
  187. jonas’ which we can use as a reference to build a better IM-NG world
  188. Ge0rG okay, I'm going to sit on '313 for another week then, hoping that somebody responds to my LC mail
  189. jonas’ okay then
  190. Ge0rG My other AOB would be Hints, actually.
  191. jonas’ everyone cast your votes on-list please
  192. jonas’ moving on
  193. Zash I still want to do a sweep of previous LCs, but haven't gotten to that yet
  194. jonas’ 6) Date of Next
  195. jonas’ +1w wfm
  196. Ge0rG +1W WFM
  197. daniel +1w wfm
  198. Zash +1w WfM
  199. jonas’ ok then
  200. jonas’ 7) AOB
  201. jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG
  202. jonas’ takes it away again
  203. jonas’ everyone OK if we overrun by 15min or so?
  204. Ge0rG 👍
  205. daniel +1
  206. jonas’ no message is a good message
  207. dwd I can't speak for everyone, but OK.
  208. Zash I'm low on energy
  209. jonas’ Ge0rG, go ahead
  210. jonas’ Zash, feel free to say "cancel" at any point and we’ll move it to next week… we can c&p the text into the next meeting :)
  211. Ge0rG Alright, re 0280: bridge carbons probably should go into its own XEP, so doesn't block advancement.
  212. Ge0rG XEP-0334 Message Hints is in a sad state, but still included in 0280
  213. Zash Modern bridge XEP? Why not
  214. Ge0rG Should we get rid of Hints altogether?
  215. Ge0rG Can we realistically, without bumping Carbons?
  216. Ge0rG And can we undo the "stripping of <private/>" without bumping Carbons?
  217. jonas’ I highly doubt the latter
  218. Ge0rG Well, it's not Draft yet.
  219. Zash Would it break anything?
  220. jonas’ Ge0rG, getting rid of Hints the concept or Hints the document?
  221. Ge0rG jonas’: the use of Hints in other XEPs
  222. jonas’ again, Hints the concept or Hints the document?
  223. jonas’ getting rid of the hints XML element, not without aborting the LC period and letting the document sit for another year at the very least
  224. Ge0rG I think that the concept makes sense, in the context of the respective XEP that's actually affected by them
  225. Sam A hint was always just a hint right, not a requirement? If we add a <do-not-carbon-this/> to carbons, we don't need a namespace bump because it would be ignored by things that don't support it and maybe ignored or maybe not by things that do. No backwards compatibility issues.
  226. jonas’ getting rid of the hints XML element, not without aborting the LC period and letting the document sit for another $periodOfTestingTime at the very least
  227. Sam I think.
  228. jonas’ Sam, no, carbons is strict about <private/>
  229. Ge0rG Does anybody remember why Hints the XEP got into a deadlock?
  230. jonas’ Ge0rG, roughly what you say
  231. jonas’ ("should be in the respective documents")
  232. jonas’ IIRC
  233. jonas’ Ge0rG, so I don’t see a problem with using the XML from the Hints XEP and dropping it
  234. jonas’ because compatibility
  235. jonas’ I don’t see carbons as a thing which must be 100%
  236. Ge0rG jonas’: that's also my memory, but maybe dwd or Kev have a better one
  237. jonas’ we need to get IM-NG 100% right, but we don’t have the concept of hints there so far and we might not even need it
  238. Ge0rG jonas’: dropping what?
  239. jonas’ Ge0rG, the Hints document
  240. dwd I thought that a previous Council had effectively killed Hints?
  241. Sam I think I -1ed it last time hints came up for advancement. My rationale IIRC was because it would never be able to be finalized because the scope was so vague. We'd want more hints, or want to change one hint that doesn't affect another but couldn't without a namespace bump for both, etc. it just felt like a "util" package that would end up being full of cruft that people stuck in when they weren't sure where else to put it.
  242. Ge0rG Is it just me or were Hints completely removed from 0313
  243. dwd I vaguely thought daniel was a key proponent of killing them entirely.
  244. jonas’ Ge0rG, that seems realistic
  245. daniel > I vaguely thought daniel was a key proponent of killing them entirely. I don't remember that
  246. Ge0rG Sam: thanks!
  247. Ge0rG So does it make sense to keep hints, that have their semantics defined inside of 0313 and/or 0280 and/or IM-NG, under a common namespace?
  248. dwd daniel, I misremebered - clearly it was Sam.
  249. jonas’ Ge0rG, not necessarily.
  250. jonas’ but if we already have them… we should keep them
  251. Ge0rG So does it make sense to keep the `<no-copy xmlns='urn:xmpp:hints'/>` XML inside of Carbons?
  252. jonas’ not change their namespace/localname pair for whatever sake
  253. jonas’ yes.
  254. Ge0rG IIRC, there was no version of Carbons that required clients to add <no-copy> without also requiring <private>
  255. Ge0rG But now we have the paradoxical situation that a receiving server will strip <private> and retain <no-copy>
  256. jonas’ Ge0rG, again, what are you trying to fix here?
  257. jonas’ is there any practical issue?
  258. Ge0rG excessive XML bloat
  259. Ge0rG also consistency with my next AOB point
  260. jonas’ I think the better place to work on that is IM-NG
  261. Ge0rG so the answer to my question is "just leave it as is"
  262. jonas’ yes.
  263. jonas’ from my side anyway
  264. Ge0rG is that a rational decision or motivated by hunger? ;)
  265. jonas’ good question!
  266. dwd Cheese.
  267. jonas’ but I don’t think the time we’ve sunk into this is worth the gain
  268. jonas’ considering that Carbons is only an intermediate solution
  269. Ge0rG jonas’: those keep running the longest.
  270. Zash A temporary hack? Oh no!
  271. jonas’ Ge0rG, they do, indeed, nevertheless... piling another layer of compat on it which isn’t solving any real UX problem is not going to make it better ;)
  272. jonas’ and thinking about the implications of changing carbons at this stage makes my head hurt
  273. Ge0rG Let me rephrase my question: I would like to remove <no-copy> from 0280 and remove the "receiving server SHOULD strip <private>" part. Is there anybody in Council who thinks either would warrant a namespace bump?
  274. jonas’ yes
  275. Zash In theory, yes. In practice, maybe not.
  276. Zash What breaks if we do that?
  277. Ge0rG We are still in Experimental ;)
  278. dwd Ge0rG, Namespace version was introduced *for* experimental...
  279. jonas’ Ge0rG, we can delay the advancement of Carbons for another half a year for no real gain, yes
  280. Ge0rG jonas’: I don't see what would break by it.
  281. Ge0rG I'm not even sure if servers are following that SHOULD.
  282. jonas’ Ge0rG, I don’t either, but I lack domain knowledge here
  283. Zash Oh, it's a SHOULD?
  284. jonas’ okay, we’ve overrun the overrun
  285. Ge0rG jonas’: maybe we should postpone that to the next week's AOB then
  286. jonas’ I think everyone has made their opinion clear so far, but we can go on next week
  287. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  288. jonas’ Thanks everyone, Thanks Tedd (I hope you’re ok!)
  289. dwd jonas’, Thanks. Go enjoy food.
  290. Ge0rG jonas’: thanks very much!
  291. Zash What time is it? Cheese time!
  292. jonas’ Gluasch time!
  293. Zash On to more important decisions, such as what to do with the cheese
  294. jonas’ put it on bread and then put both in the oven until the cheese has melted
  295. Zash Will I have enough energy to make food to replenish my energy? Tune in next week to find out!
  296. Zash I don't have any bread 🙁
  297. jonas’ put it in a pan and fry it until the lower side gets slightly hard
  298. Zash I could make bread, but that would take hours
  299. jonas’ crispy molten cheese!
  300. Zash That doesn't sound like a treatment worthy of Wästerbotten cheese!
  301. jonas’ what even is that?
  302. Zash Magic
  303. Zash It turns anything into delicious luxury food.
  304. Zash Cheap frozen pizza? Apply västerbottensost and it's the most delicious pizza ever!
  305. Zash Can only be produced in tiny village in the middle of nowhere in northern sweden. Nobody knows why. Magic!
  306. Kev FWIW, I think a client telling the remote server how to process a stanza, which changes which of the recipients clients get it, but stripping the instuction out so the recipient never knows is harmful.
  307. Zash Why was it done anyway?
  308. Ge0rG Kev: I fully agree
  309. dwd No idea why Kev is discussing protocl stuff in the cheese channel. I'd expect a solid mention of Welsh Rabbit by now.
  310. Kev I live to surprise.
  311. Kev Or something.
  312. Ge0rG I need to stop working already and drive to the local dairy to get some fresh milk and cheese.
  313. Zash It puts the cheese in the basket or else
  314. paul has left
  315. paul has joined
  316. debacle has left
  317. debacle has joined
  318. paul has left
  319. paul has joined
  320. paul has left
  321. paul has joined
  322. paul has left
  323. paul has joined
  324. paul has left
  325. paul has joined
  326. debacle has left
  327. debacle has joined
  328. paul has left
  329. Wojtek has left
  330. Tobias has left
  331. SouL has left
  332. don has joined
  333. debacle has left
  334. don has left