KevI think MAM needs at least one round of changes, given my review yesterday, but they’re not major.
Kev(Jumping ahead because I might not notice when (5) comes up)
Ge0rGI think MAM needs at least one round of changes, given my review three weeks ago, but they're rather significant.
jonas’Kev, we are already at (5) :)
dwdAh. Sorry, I've been dragged into a meeting.
ZashI've looked at past LCs and there's been a lot of back and forth on things
Ge0rGThe agenda items 2 to 5 all arrived in the same second at my end. Some lag might be involved.
Zash<private> vs xep-0334 and whatnot
Ge0rGShould we have some separate discussion of the open points of 0280 and of 0313 before casting final votes?
jonas’so IMO we should factor out the rules in a standards track document which defines disco#info features. The rules should be called "general routing rules" and versioning should go across all of them, but they may be different for the different "routing" protocols (MAM, Carbons, CSI, Push…)
jonas’we can think about the issue that such a living document can never advance beyond Draft later.
Ge0rGjonas’: so one namespace for all the routing rules, instead of one namespace per task?
jonas’ideally that issue resolves itself with IM-NG
jonas’but I’m not hard-sold on that
ZashThe base wire protocols are probably good enough and certainly well-deployed by now,..
Ge0rGWhat do we do with urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0?
jonas’Ge0rG, make it implicit in urn:xmpp:routing-rules:0
jonas’and advertise it for up to routing-rules:N, where N is the revision where the rules for carbons are first changed
KevFWIW, nothing needs factoring out of either 313 or 280 in order for later rules to be defined elsewhere.
Ge0rGwell, the feature version was just a quirk to get around bumping carbons, so I'm not fighting to death over it
Kev(At least, the intention when writing the text in 313 was that a later external feature could be advertised for a concrete set of rules, same as 280)
jonas’but again, not hard sold on unifying them; it seemed sensible to me on a quick thought to have that all under a single version umbrella, but especially when we have to adapt (e.g. only) push rules and then have to forklift all features, it seems a bit overkill
jonas’yep, separated features are probably waaay better
ZashAnd then compliance suites that point to recommended versions?
Ge0rGI'm torn on whether to use my 0313 vote to extort somebody to write down those rules for 0313
jonas’Ge0rG, I get the impression that '313 may be blocked anyway
KevI don’t think 313 is blocked otherwise in a meaningful sense. I.e. I don’t think any changes need another LC.
Ge0rGIndeed, even if I were to retract my storage rules requirement, there are still the open questions around MUC in personal MAM and client business rules
Ge0rGand of course the bind2 / MAM subscription topic that probably needs to be postponed anyway.
ZashMyeah, recommending against storing MUC messages without additional negotiation would probably be good.
Zash"additional negotiation" something something MIX I guess
Ge0rGbackfilling of MIX history on the personal MAM is still an unsolved problem.
Ge0rGGiven that, I'm solidly -1 on 0313.
jonas’how about '280?
ZashThe <private> thing seems unresolved.
Ge0rGKev addressed the "stripping <private> parts" point and I'd like to get a discussion of Hints
Ge0rGMy desired way forward would be to remove the stripping requirement, to completely remove Hints, and to Convince Council to go on without a namespace bump.
danielyou'd need to convince the authors. not council
Ge0rGI'd also rewrite the Mobile Considerations to say the opposite of what it does now, but that's the non-normative part.
Ge0rGdaniel: given that I'm one of the authors, you can consider it done.
jonas’my problem with not bumping the namespace there would be, on a theoretical level, that a client relying on <private/> not being stripped may be owned in one way or another by an old server
Ge0rGStill, I've heard some objections from Council members about this suggestion last week
ZashDoes anything really bad happen in that case?
Ge0rGjonas’: you mean by a client relying on <private/> *being* stripped?
Ge0rGjonas’: ah, now I get you
jonas’if we don’t bump and a new implementation comes along, relying for $importantFeature on <private/> being there, it will be confused when <private/> is *not* there because the server is on old carbons
Ge0rGSo I'd also add an implementation note.
jonas’and then what?
Ge0rGjonas’: also there used to be different semantics for stripping <private/> before 2013, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html#revision-history-v0.9
Ge0rGjonas’: as I read the log, it was stripped by the *sending* server before
Zash<server author hat> I think it does that still?
jonas’that makes me think that we should not at all rely on <private/> being there or not being there
jonas’too many versions
jonas’and adding another change is not going to make it any better
Ge0rGSo can I move forward with my grand plan?
jonas’Ge0rG, no, I think that you should leave <private/> alone
Ge0rGjonas’: is that an opinion or a foreshadowed Council vote?
jonas’that is an opinion
jonas’because I don’t see what good it brings
Ge0rG`Sorry, my prosody is stalled
jonas’I hope this wasn’t me
Ge0rG`Only if you suddenly took over VaxBot
Ge0rGjonas’: I think that Kev has a great point about letting the receiving client know that it received a Carbon that won't get delivered to any other resource.
KevI think it’s a not-insignificant security consideration to strip private.
Ge0rG`> jonas’: I think that Kev has a great point about letting the receiving client know that it received a Carbon that won't get delivered to any other resource.
KevLetting another user modify my server’s routing rules without telling me does not seem at all safe.
jonas’Kev, I agree, but just removing that rule doesn’t mean that anyone can rely on it
jonas’Ge0rG`, so you could do it with a feature flag IMO
KevBut this isn’t a case of clients relying on it.
KevIt’s a case of a user of a server relying on the server not doing questionable things without trace.
Ge0rG`But we are also still in Experimental, so it's all not so bad from a protocol point of view. Right?
Ge0rG`(from a Council protocol...)
KevI would be ok (not that my opinion matters) with removing that (or rather, flipping that to a must not) rule without adding the feature. But adding the feature is cheap, and not without value, so why not.
jonas’what Kev says tho
Ge0rGAlright, I can live with what Kev says.
jonas’then do that please
Ge0rGNow what about stripping Hints from the XEP?
jonas’do we know how widely implementations rely on that?
ZashDo we not like Hints anymore?
Ge0rGIronically, current-0280 requires to strip <private/> but doesn't mention strpping the Hint.
KevI would probably form an opinion on that given time to think, but don’t currently have one on the hop.
jonas’Ge0rG, what is the harm of keeping it?
Ge0rGjonas’: we are enshrining a protocol that we don't want to keep.
Ge0rGjonas’: there was a version of 0280 that only required adding <private/> and later a version that required adding both <private/> and the Hint.
Ge0rGThus, removing the Hint requirement won't break any compliant implementations.
Ge0rGI dislike the inconsistency of https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html#avoiding
jonas’section 9 reads very confusing
jonas’> The sending client MAY exclude a <message/> from being forwarded to other Carbons-enabled resources, by adding a <private/> element qualified by the namespace "urn:xmpp:carbons:2" and a <no-copy/> hint as described in Message Processing Hints (XEP-0334)  as child elements of the <message/> stanza.
jonas’the sending client is not excluding anything, protocol wise
jonas’and then the enumeration just goes on as if it was on the same side of the contract ... very weird
jonas’Ge0rG, put that on your list of things to fix please
Ge0rGjonas’: I'd improve the wording while removing Hints.
jonas’if *both* are currently required, we can remove hints without damage indeed
Ge0rGjonas’: that's what the XEP says, right?
jonas’I mean I think the XEP makes no statement at all about that in the text as written because of that wording weirdness, but the intent is clear
Ge0rGYes, that's also my reading of it
danielThe concept of private messages is out dated anyway.
I think a variant version of carbons todo wouldn't even have it
Ge0rGdaniel: what about OTR?
danielMy point exactly
KevPrivate goes away in IMNG, I think, but I’m not sure until then.
danielOtr was the only thing that used it
Ge0rGKev: but it goes away because we introduce a different mechanism to route a message just to a single specific resource, right?
danielAnd even otrv3 technically didn't event need it
Ge0rGSo just the XML element goes away, not the semantics.
KevThe new syntax for sending just to one resource becomes to=‘fulljid’ :D
Ge0rGUnless we decide that we do not have any more need to route messages just to a single resource.
jonas’we’re a bit over time at this point
jonas’Ge0rG, do you need any further input?
Ge0rGBut I'm pretty sure we will have some use for that in IOT or PubSub events
jonas’6) Date of Next
Ge0rGIs the CVE PR applied already? :D
jonas’(waking up Zash and dwd )
Ge0rG+1W WFM, but the following two weeks I'm going to be on vacation (from the computer screen)
jonas’Ge0rG, good for you!
jonas’skipped because time
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
Ge0rGBut but but AOB!
Zashno aob for you
jonas’Ge0rG, no, not yet, please bring it to the list because there was controversy around that in xsf@ and I’d like to have some rough consensus
Ge0rGAlso nobody cast their votes on 0280
Ge0rGso this makes another failed LC, right?
jonas’Ge0rG, right, forgot, I wanted to ask
jonas’9) Ite Meeting Un-Est
jonas’votes on '280?
jonas’I imagine you’ll want to veto
Ge0rG+1 with all the discussed changes applied.
Zash-1 until the <private> thing has consensus and is resolved
jonas’following Zash here
jonas’(changing my +1)
Ge0rGZash: how do you imagine consensus happening here?
danielI don't think it matters what label we put on a very flawed but de facto draft xep
jonas’10) Ite Meeting Est for real
jonas’(gotta run, need to prepare for being reaallly quick in 15 minutes)
ZashGe0rG: apply the changes discussed. I've ran out of coffee, can't think anymore.
Ge0rGAlright. I'll PR and then ask for another LC.