pep.re https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-August/036367.html, do I really want to send directed presences to anybody who initiates an OMEMO discussion with me?
pep.That means anybody can freely request my presence
pep.And I guess subscribing to PEP would be the same to some extent?
tomhas left
lksjdflksjdfhas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
ajhas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
tomhas joined
bhaveshsguptahas joined
tomhas left
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
bhaveshsguptahas joined
tomhas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
wurstsalathas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
DanielZash: omemo dates back to a time when multiple items in a node wasn't a thing
DanielAnd changing the access model is a later, backward compatible change. Using just one node is not
DanielI also find the multiple nodes thing to be ugly but 🤷♂️
Danieltom: some servers also allow you to set the access model server side
tomhas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
Alexhas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
larmahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
larmahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
pep.Daniel: no opinion on my question above?
Danielpep., on the subscribe / not subscribe?
Danielno not really. it is a tough question. i don’t have a good answer
pep.I think I'll be subscribing to PEP manually when I get a message from a non-contact, and unsubscribe when either the user closes the tab, or I disconnect, or if I get a PEP notification and I don't have any tab for them anymore
Daniel> if I get a PEP notification and I don't have any tab for them anymore
+ not having mutual presence sub
pep.That opens me to less things I guess? Sending directed presence automatically seems a bit meh privacy-wise? (Or am I missing something)
pep.Yee
pep.Yess
pep.Yes
pep.(I'm not drunk, honest)
Danieli follow that logic privacey wise. seems like a lot of hassle
Danielplus unclear what happens if Conversations still has a tab open
Danielcan i subscribe full jid?
pep.Well that means anybody can get a directed presence from me if they send me some kind of omemo attempt
ZashYou specify the JID to subscribe
Danielpep., well in both cases i would first sub/send presence when you want to respond
pep.Why?
pep.I would refuse it. I don't want everybody in my contacts
Zashpep-sub
ZashI assume
Danielyes
Zashpep-subscription and directed presence
pep.Ah
Daniel*or
pep.Yes
pep.Or yes
Danielso either way it will be a) a little less harmfull privacey wise b) more of a just-in-time / just-if-needed approach
pep.Ah I see what you mean
pep.When you want to respond and not when you revive it
pep.Receive*
Danielyes
bhaveshsguptahas left
ZashUser signals intent, so seems fine.
pep.Also directed presence then? Or do you think it's not useful? (Because there's no associated behaviour yet)
Danieli mean the manually pep-sub / pep-unsub is really annoying because later on you will also want to pep-sub to muc participants
Danieland then when a notification comes in you have to check for tab open, mutual presence and if you are in a muc with that person
ZashThat will be fragile
Danieland if not pep-unsub
pep.Yeah that sounds annoying
Danielyes that will be super fragile
Danielthat's why i haven’t done it yet either
Danielthat's why i kinda like the simplicity of the directed presence suggestion you had
Danielbut i also totally see the downsides of that
Danielplus if you go the pep-sub route? do you unsub before logoff? do you resub on every login?
pep.I probably would
Danielsince you can’t really know if you have succesfully subbed in a previous session you will probably have to resub on login anyway
Danielso that's a lot of traffic
Danielhowever you want to spin it it's going to be supper annoying
pep.Hmm, I'm probably not a good example with my ratio of opened public channels vs private ones
bhaveshsguptahas joined
pep.I think in any case we could make it so that PEP with access_model=open is sent if there is a directed presence. Independently of whether we use it for omemo
pep.Then maybe someday it'll get better deployment wise
Daniel> I think in any case we could make it so that PEP with access_model=open is sent if there is a directed presence. Independently of whether we use it for omemo
Yes as I said on list this probably won't hurt. And then some people can do that until we have something better
pep.That would require a change in the xep right?
pep.A new disco thing?
DanielMaybe we can also be a bit smarter about how we detect new devices. For example when I receive an omemo message from someone with an unknown device id (because they are using it to carbon copy to one of their other devices) I'll try to trigger a device list query again
DanielLittle things like that
pep.Right
Ge0rGLittle undocumented things? Even the part about adding all your other device IDs into a message because of implied 0280 isn't really documented.
Daniellittle undocumented things? you mean xmpp?
Ge0rGNo, that's the huge undocumented elephant in the room thing.
Danielalso not true. from the omemo xep:
> for each intended recipient device, i.e. both own devices as well as devices associated with the contact
pep.Ge0rG: we all know the omemo xep could be better. There's an effort to document that on the wiki already iirc
pep.(Looking for it)
pep.Where was that page again..
Danielunder tech pages
Ge0rGWe should have a wiki category for Errata or somesuch, and link to it from https://xmpp.org/extensions/
pep.Daniel: thanks
pep.Ge0rG: agreed
Ge0rGluckily, you don't have to be on iteam to create wiki categories
pep.Then go ahead :p
pep.Also don't forget to submit your changes to xsf/xmpp.org
pep.Or xeps
Ge0rGAlso somebody should move the 2020 events from "Recent" into "Upcoming"
pep.Somebody should
Danieli'll do that
Danielalso gsoc is over, right?
pep.Yeah, final evaluation is over almost
Ge0rGHey, I already did that for https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Category:Interop more or less.
pep.There's also the remarks page
Ge0rGDaniel: please also add https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2019
pep.https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XEP_and_RFC_Remarks
pep.We could link to that
pep.Oh that's a thing already
Ge0rGpep.: wait, is that like a Category page but manually maintained?
bhaveshsguptahas left
pep.Dunno
pep.Maybe it's just a page
bhaveshsguptahas joined
pep.We could make it a category yeah
Ge0rGpep.: it's a page that contains a list of other pages.
Ge0rGYes please
pep."Errata"
pep.Never done that, and I'm on the phone right now (biggest hurdle)
Ge0rGCategory:Errata is good, I think. "Remarks" are slightly more than Errata, but I think it captures the meaing rather well
Ge0rGpep.: it's actually super-easy, just add the category tag at the bottom of each page, like this: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Interop_2010&curid=408&diff=11425&oldid=2346
Ge0rGpep.: if you can schedule the time to do it in the next days, that would be great.
Syndacehas left
pep.I like how you give work to others :p
Ge0rGpep.: finally, move the https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XEP_and_RFC_Remarks page into https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Category:Errata
Syndacehas joined
Ge0rGpep.: "I'm on the phone right now" is a temporary state, and I read that "I'd like to do it, but"
Ge0rGpep.: also you said at FrOSCon that you have some free time for this kind of things ;)
pep.That I'm using fully, don't worry about mr
pep.That I'm using fully, don't worry about me
pep.Not that I don't want to do it, but not right now, also I don't like being told things, so you'll have to be more subtle next time :p
pep.Your nerdsniping skills could be improved!
Ge0rGpep.: oh, sorry! It would be really great if somebody volunteered to refactor that page into a wiki category... 😇
jonas’pep., regarding errata, I’d be interested in having a consistent naming scheme for that so that I can detect existing pages during xeps builds and add links from XEP -> Errata pages
jonas’there’s an issue for that in the xeps repo
pep.Seems I'm the goto person now. Ge0rG you can take example on jonas’
pep.You can't really guarantee what users will do with page names
pep.But we can definitely restrict what the build will use
jonas’pep., yes, the build needs a URL-template where only the XEP number is a variable.
jonas’it’ll still be fun & tricky to do because we can’t (hopefully) do that in XSLT
pep.My xslt skills are almost nonexistent anyway
Zashjonas’ is that a challenge?
ZashIsn't xslt turing-complete?
jonas’Zash, it is, but it cannot request external resources in XSLT 1.0
ZashMmmmm, must be some wiki index that can be fetched and used somehow
lksjdflksjdfhas joined
lksjdflksjdfhas left
bhaveshsguptahas left
Ge0rGjonas’: would it be insane to have a category for each XEP, and to link to that?
lksjdflksjdfhas joined
jonas’Ge0rG, yes, I think so
jonas’a page per XEP should do
jonas’do you have a concrete example where that isn’t sufficient? could we do a redirect to a category in that case?
Zashhas left
jonas’do you have a concrete example where that isn’t sufficient? could we do a redirect to a category in those cases?
Zashhas joined
Ge0rGjonas’: it would give us auto-linking of all pages related to a given XEP
jonas’Ge0rG, wait, a category per XEP for all XEP-related stuff, or a category per XEP for all errata?
jonas’Ge0rG, wait, a category per XEP for all XEP-related stuff, or a category per XEP for all errata for that XEP?
jonas’a category per XEP for all XEP-related stuff (including a single page which is used for errata) makes sense to me
Ge0rGjonas’: a category per XEP and a link from the XEP to that category?
bhaveshsguptahas joined
bhaveshsguptahas left
bhaveshsguptahas joined
pep.I think it's fine if a page doesn't exist on the wiki
pep.Just link to it, and people can create it when necessary
DanielZash, does proxy65 have a timeout? between connecting and activation?
ZashNAFAIK
ZashIs this a XEP question or a Prosody question?
Danielprosody. the xep doesn’t say anything in that regard
ZashI'd have to look at the code but I don't remember any timeout in the module itself.
ZashThere are however socket timeouts that kick in if you're idle for some time and I don't think it has any keepalive logic.
ZashAlso this is not the prosody support room
Danielit's a prelude to a broader question that concerns jdev
Danielbecause ejabberd has one and it's causing problems in the way i use proxy65 with jingle
ZashI imagine that the receiving end could have troubles if they don't say anything for ~14 minutes
Danielyeah 14 min is probably fine
ZashBut that's after activatino
ZashLarge files and poor connections (mobile?) could probably reach that
Danielso the way i use jingle is that i connect to my own candidates before i send the offer. (because there are chances that i can’t reach my own proxy because firewall/missconfiguration and i can’t retroactively kill one of my candidates
ZashBut you're talking about a timeout between the inital connection(s) and the activation?
Danielso if remote takes it's time to answer my offer, connect to the proxy as well / go through the dance; there might be more time passed than timeout before i can send proxy activate
DanielZash, that's the one
Danielbut maybe i'm just not understanding jingle
ZashI thought you could add/change/remove anything at any time, but then I haven't done much Jingle dev either.
Ge0rGAre there still MUC implementations that don't set status=110 on your reflected join presence?
bhaveshsguptahas left
chinaoceanhas joined
chinaoceanI send xml message to openfire by spark to regieste an account
chinaoceanbut Openfire report the error :
chinaocean<field type="jid-single" label="The Jabber ID for the account to be added" var="accountjid">
<required />
</field>
ZashMaybe you could pastebin the full stanzas you sent and received?
chinaoceanin fact , i have trasfered the JID parameter
ZashNot starting with this step? https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0050.html#example-8
ZashRougly, for simple commands it goes something like
1. Execute command
2. Receive dataform
3. Submit dataform with values
4. Get result (or another form)
Ge0rGShould a client send 0184 receipts for all messages retrieved from MAM? :>
ZashUgh
ZashShould the server save 184 recepits?
lovetoxyes Ge0rG
lovetoxyes Zash
Ge0rGZash: yes
Ge0rGZash: also message errors.
lovetoxGe0rG, you can wait the catchup and see if another client of yours already sent a 0184 receip
lovetoxthen you should not send another one
lovetoxas receipts should be account based not resource based
ZashIf receipts are account based then the server should send them
lovetoxServer cant know if client received a message
Zashand then they change meaning to "saved into recipients archive"
lovetoxreceipt means a client successfully processed a message, in my opinion
lovetoxand not "its in some archive"
lovetoxthough probably debateable
Ge0rGI agree with lovetox on that.
Ge0rGOtherwise I'd have suggested that before.
Ge0rGBut there is real value in "this message arrived at a client", because it means the account isn't abandoned
Ge0rGI also need a mechanism to delay notifications for MAMed messages.
lovetoxamazing how much more things you have to think about in a client if you implement this rather easy "get me these messages from the archive" XEP :9
ZashHas 333 been fixed to not duplicate parts of 184 and chat states?
Zash... yet?
lovetoxnope
lovetoxbut also nobody is forced to implement these parts :9
lovetoxbut also nobody is forced to implement these parts :)
bhaveshsguptahas left
ZashNobody is forced to implement 333 at all
bhaveshsguptahas joined
Ge0rGSigh. Databases are hard. I want to switch android notifications from live-generated and appended-to, to database based. I'm looking for something like "unread incoming messages", but that conveniently leaves out delivery errors, because those get aggregated into the "outgoing transmitted but failed" messages
Ge0rGI wonder if an SQLite index on (from_or_to, delivery_status) will even work efficiently for such a query. After all, from_or_to can take both possible values here.