jdev - 2021-02-16


  1. debacle has left
  2. pasdesushi has joined
  3. pasdesushi has left
  4. pasdesushi has joined
  5. adityaborikar has joined
  6. SouL has left
  7. Vaulor has left
  8. pasdesushi has left
  9. belong has left
  10. kikuchiyo has left
  11. belong has joined
  12. Zash has left
  13. Zash has joined
  14. suohua has left
  15. Vaulor has joined
  16. paul has left
  17. Zash has left
  18. Zash has joined
  19. SouL has joined
  20. Yagizа has joined
  21. Vaulor has left
  22. fade123 has left
  23. suohua has joined
  24. fade123 has joined
  25. suohua has left
  26. SouL has left
  27. lovetox has left
  28. mikeye has joined
  29. Vaulor has joined
  30. suohua has joined
  31. suohua has left
  32. suohua has joined
  33. Stefan has left
  34. Stefan has joined
  35. SouL has joined
  36. lovetox has joined
  37. suohua has left
  38. SouL has left
  39. SouL has joined
  40. mac has joined
  41. Daniel has left
  42. Daniel has joined
  43. suohua has joined
  44. mac has left
  45. suohua has left
  46. mac has joined
  47. suohua has joined
  48. paul has joined
  49. mikeye has left
  50. tiaod has joined
  51. mac has left
  52. wurstsalat has joined
  53. Stefan has left
  54. suohua has left
  55. mac has joined
  56. mac has left
  57. mac has joined
  58. belong has left
  59. mikeye has joined
  60. belong has joined
  61. marmistrz has joined
  62. Stefan has joined
  63. Daniel sonny, here is the stacktrace https://paste.rs/adf
  64. Alex has left
  65. mikeye has left
  66. mikeye has joined
  67. Alex has joined
  68. mac has left
  69. Kev has left
  70. floretta has left
  71. jubalh has left
  72. goffi has joined
  73. Kev has joined
  74. belong has left
  75. sonny Ha it's a stream error, the server is closing the connection, not xmpp.js
  76. sonny Apparently because the server is waiting on xmpp.js and it's not doing what it expects
  77. sonny Can you reproduce with passing --unhandled-rejections=strict to node?
  78. sonny Also what server is that?
  79. oibalos has joined
  80. Daniel sonny, ok. nevermind then. but thanks for your help i got tasked to code this by someone else who needed this. but they don’t know anything about xmpp but it also had to be node because node is all they use
  81. Daniel i originally just tried to point them to a 'good' javascript library. and then this grew into more and more me hacking something i don’t understand :-/
  82. Daniel so i'm not seeing this error. only they do. and apperantly they are seeing this only when thy try this from a server on the other side of world
  83. Daniel so i thought i'd just increase the client side timeout and be done with it
  84. Daniel but now that it turns out to be something more weird i'm just gonna give up
  85. sonny Alright, please invite them to create an issue in the repository
  86. marmistrz has left
  87. marmistrz has joined
  88. belong has joined
  89. marmistrz has left
  90. mikeye has left
  91. debacle has joined
  92. marmistrz has joined
  93. fade123 has left
  94. fade123 has joined
  95. FireFly has left
  96. FireFly has joined
  97. alacer has left
  98. debacle has left
  99. pasdesushi has joined
  100. pulkomandy has left
  101. pulkomandy has joined
  102. pulkomandy has left
  103. pulkomandy has joined
  104. marmistrz has left
  105. alacer has joined
  106. Wojtek has joined
  107. belong has left
  108. kikuchiyo has joined
  109. mikeye has joined
  110. belong has joined
  111. pasdesushi has left
  112. pasdesushi has joined
  113. asterix has left
  114. asterix has joined
  115. lovetox has left
  116. pasdesushi has left
  117. mikeye has left
  118. lovetox has joined
  119. pasdesushi has joined
  120. marmistrz has joined
  121. floretta has joined
  122. pasdesushi has left
  123. fade123 has left
  124. fade123 has joined
  125. asterix has left
  126. asterix has joined
  127. asterix has left
  128. asterix has joined
  129. asterix has left
  130. asterix has joined
  131. asterix has left
  132. asterix has joined
  133. marmistrz has left
  134. asterix has left
  135. asterix has joined
  136. asterix has left
  137. asterix has joined
  138. belong has left
  139. tiaod has left
  140. belong has joined
  141. tiaod has joined
  142. mac has joined
  143. Wojtek has left
  144. Wojtek has joined
  145. asterix has left
  146. asterix has joined
  147. asterix has left
  148. asterix has joined
  149. Meta Bergman has joined
  150. belong has left
  151. mac has left
  152. jubalh has joined
  153. jubalh has left
  154. Stefan has left
  155. cyril has joined
  156. Stefan has joined
  157. cyril Hello, I am trying to use the slixmpp python library synchronously
  158. cyril Like connect() do_some_stuff() close()
  159. cyril is there some examples using it like this ?
  160. Zash I've no recent experience with slixmpp but I'd try prefixing every line with `await` and see what happens. :)
  161. cyril Oh I was talking about sleekxmpp sorry
  162. Stefan has left
  163. cyril The thing is that the code using the library is not aware of coroutines
  164. Sam Whited sleekxmpp is unmaintained and deprecated, if you're starting a new project in python I'd use slixmpp or aioxmpp
  165. cyril Ok, I was talking of slixmpp, sorry 😅
  166. cyril The interface exposed to client have to look like somehing synchronous
  167. Sam Whited Maybe just take the echobot example from the docs and remove the message processing and do whatever you want to do in session_start instead?
  168. cyril with the event loop running in a thread
  169. cyril It kind of work but outputs some errors when disconnecting, like "ERROR Task was destroyed but it is pending!"
  170. cyril I was thinking maybe someone has already done this
  171. Sam Whited /cc mathieui (who mostly works on this, I think?)
  172. moparisthebest cyril: https://github.com/moparisthebest/sendxmpp-py
  173. Stefan has joined
  174. cyril Ok thanks, might be the self.disconnect(wait=True) thing!
  175. moparisthebest It stopped working for me years ago and instead of wasting more time with python I just rewrote it in Rust, might help you as an example though
  176. flow speaking of, what is the go to rust xmpp library?
  177. belong has joined
  178. jonas’ Link Mauve, ^
  179. Sam Whited flow: https://crates.io/crates/tokio-xmpp
  180. Wojtek has left
  181. Wojtek has joined
  182. flow thanks
  183. Wojtek has left
  184. Wojtek has joined
  185. pasdesushi has joined
  186. pasdesushi has left
  187. pasdesushi has joined
  188. pasdesushi has left
  189. cyril mathieui: Here is a minimal example of what I am trying to do https://pastebin.com/0VTQ7qtg
  190. cyril If you have any insight
  191. cyril That was for some quick unit tests, learning rust would be a bit overkill but it is on the todo list!
  192. serge90 has left
  193. serge90 has joined
  194. pasdesushi has joined
  195. edhelas has left
  196. edhelas has joined
  197. Martin has left
  198. Martin has joined
  199. pasdesushi has left
  200. kikuchiyo has left
  201. kikuchiyo has joined
  202. mathieui cyril, I don’t have a lot of insight around using threads with asyncio, I know there are some barriers in place to prevent people from doing weird things
  203. mathieui you should keep all slixmpp interactions in the same threads otherwise things can get weird pretty fast
  204. cyril ok thanks
  205. mathieui but what you sent seems mostly correct, using process(forever=False) will run the event loop until the client gets disconnected
  206. mathieui we might get rid of it at some point as it is confusing for people coming from slixmpp
  207. cyril actually it tells me « ValueError: loop argument must agree with Future » when calling process(forever=False)
  208. cyril with the non minimal example it worked (with almost the same code…) but I got an error on disconnect
  209. mathieui cyril, it looks like a future was created on another thread, which then used a different event loop
  210. jubalh has joined
  211. mathieui (slixmpp tries to use one specific event loop and only one, but it will not help if things happen in a multithreaded environment)
  212. tiaod has left
  213. cyril yep, I will try again with everything in the same thread
  214. cyril that was the plan anyway
  215. southerntofu hey is this a good place to submit criticism of MIX spec? or should i wrote a mail/blogpost?
  216. mathieui FYI you can have something like def func(self): xmpp = ClientXMPP(…) xmpp.connect() xmpp.loop.run_until_complete(xmpp.wait_until('session_start')) do_stuff() # you need to run the loop for most network operations though loop.run_until_complete(xmpp.disconnect()) but it is not a very pleasant workflow
  217. mathieui southerntofu, I guess an email to standards@ might be a more persistent venue for this?
  218. southerntofu thanks, makes sense
  219. tiaod has joined
  220. belong has left
  221. mathieui I should finish the slixmpp implementation too, it is already working but lacks mix-admin or mix-misc
  222. oibalos has left
  223. oibalos has joined
  224. southerntofu hmmm i see no intent (yet) to support in dino, gajim, conversations according to bugtracker
  225. southerntofu is it because people are so happy with MUC? or because there's no momentum yet?
  226. southerntofu i'm asking because there's some privacy concerns i'd like to address with some MUCs (eg. occupant ID) and i was told MIX was probably the way to go for feedback on specs, instead of fixing/extending existing MUC XEPs
  227. pep. honestly if you're waiting for MIX to fix this you're gonna wait for some more time
  228. pep. There's two camps, choose yours :x
  229. Sam Whited I don't have any good reason, but I suspect it's a mix of MUC working "good enough" once the implementation is done (even though it's a mess under the hood), so there's no user pressure ot move, and MIX ending up being really complicated and requiring a lot of big dependencies (pubsub/pep).
  230. southerntofu pep., are you saying some people are not convinced by MIX and likely won't be?
  231. pep. southerntofu, that
  232. Sam Whited So you've got the double whammy of no user pressure and devs don't want to read 46 pages and implement a ton of new things.
  233. southerntofu well that makes sense Sam Whited
  234. Sam Whited That being said, there is slow uptake. There are experimental implementations in a couple of servers and clients, at least.
  235. southerntofu Sam Whited, where can i see what clients/servers implement it?
  236. southerntofu my 4 clients of choice apparently don't :P
  237. moparisthebest southerntofu: it's just tigase
  238. mathieui southerntofu, siskin is one
  239. Zash ITYM if you want MIX you should implement MIX
  240. southerntofu Zash, not sure i *want* mix, though building upon standardized building blocks for multi user chatting sounds appealing :)
  241. Sam Whited I think there were experimental implementations in ejabberd, prosody, and tigase (those devs will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong) and the tigase people had an implementation in their clients I think. Unsure if it's released or just on a branch somewhere though.
  242. mathieui But yes, there is MUC which has worked well enough for years despite all of its warts, which we can mostly work around by now, and MIX which requires both pubsub support, multiple (albeit quite short) specs, and home server support
  243. pep. And also has different trade-offs really
  244. southerntofu pep., what's the tradeoffs of MIX?
  245. pep. Not saying I'm against MIX or pro-MUC, but they're not equivalent
  246. mathieui pep., well, it is more modular and extensible, and the workflows aer nicer from a client dev perspective
  247. mathieui the main downside is the requirement of home server support
  248. southerntofu and do you folks know if there's some people working on client/server test suite for MIX? soundsl ike it could help imlpmenetaiton
  249. Zash We could make it *drumroll* presence-based, like MUC, then you don't need home server support
  250. mathieui Zash, please no
  251. Zash IIRC there was brief discussion on some summit about that
  252. southerntofu mathieui, what do you mean home server? my understanding is if your server doesn't support it a MIX node can provide a MUC compatibility layer, correct?
  253. mathieui southerntofu, it can be done, yes, but then from a client perspective you are not using MIX
  254. mathieui presence-based is my main peeve with 0045
  255. southerntofu yeah i also dislike the whole "presence" concept (to me it's an antifeature though i understand in corporate settings i can be useful)
  256. southerntofu presence-based chat sounds like IRC to me :)
  257. Zash what
  258. mathieui southerntofu, presence is a potential privacy leak but also useful information
  259. mathieui and MIX does not remove presence, it just removes it from the workflow and makes its support optional
  260. southerntofu mathieui, i don't have a use case for it, but i'm not opposed to people broadcasting presence info.. but in my view opt-in is better :)
  261. Zash I can see how it was more useful back when you were online via dialup ~1h per day, but I don't see it as an anti-feature.
  262. Kev The presence of presence isn’t an anti-feature, in my view, but tying MUC’s workings to it is.
  263. Sam Whited ⤴️
  264. mathieui ^
  265. Wojtek has left
  266. Zash This
  267. Kev (Not because I don’t want presence in my rooms, I do, I just want it decoupled)
  268. southerntofu Zash, depends on the usecase, but it's a huge metadata leak (see discussion in #modernxmpp). i understand myhome server needs to know which clients are online to deliver messages, but i don't want anyone else to know about that, or whether i received a message or not
  269. Sam Whited It's a metadata leak that won't matter for 99% of people though.
  270. southerntofu but i can also understand people who want it
  271. Zash southerntofu: Presence should definitely be protected, and XMPP tries to do that.
  272. Sam Whited If you are that tiny percentage of people who need the absolute privacy you described, you need to be using a special service and clients and what not that are designed for that.
  273. Zash Why you need to add people and get their approval to see their presence
  274. southerntofu Zash, yes that's good, but that a MUC operator can see everyone's presence is a huge difference in the threat model (i.e. correlating identities) compared to simply subscription settings (at least when the convos are OMEMO-encrypted)
  275. Zash Yup. What Kev said.
  276. southerntofu Sam Whited, i don't understand your point.. should privacy just be for the 1%? i'm aware of the tradeoffs i make but most people are not..
  277. moparisthebest define "privacy"
  278. Sam Whited southerntofu: no, but we don't need to optimize for the tiny percent of people who are worried about the threat you outlined. Most people it's perfectly fine if they join a MUC and share their presence.
  279. Sam Whited We do a pretty good job of balancing that overall. Getting rid of all presence won't help the majority of people in any way, it will just annoy them.
  280. Kev I think it’s good to define protocols that can be used in a reasonably private manner.
  281. mathieui southerntofu, I don’t see a thread model that has critical protection requirements on presence data (although sure, protecting it as much as we can should be a goal)
  282. Kev Which MIX tries to do by allowing you to send or not send presence, but still participate in the chat, and it can be controlled on your server, so the room only needs to know when you send a message, or initially join.
  283. Kev Compared to MUC, where the MUC needs to know not only when you’re online, but how many (and which, practically) devices you have online at that moment.
  284. mathieui Kev, with MIX, a client only needs to not send presence to the MIX items in their roster, right?
  285. Kev OTOH, I think Sam is right that 99% (or some high proportion of people) would choose to have the benefits of sharing presence with the room of their friends or whatever, over the privacy.
  286. Kev mathieui: Yes, the client can just not set up presence and everything Should Just Work.
  287. southerntofu Kev, yes i think that's a huge improvement, however what started this discussion was in XEP 0403:
  288. southerntofu > A MIX channel MAY require that all participants publish presence, so that active channel participants are visible. It is not possible to enforce this in the server, so participants in a channel with this option MUST publish presence.
  289. Kev Practically, the important bit there for privacy is ‘It is not possible to enforce this’ :)
  290. southerntofu moparisthebest, defining "privacy" is a hard task.. there's different threat models, but i believe they should be more explicit in the specs :)
  291. Sam Whited To repeat my argument from there: if you need that level of privacy, you can't rely on the server to enforce it anyways, so if you're writing a privacy aware client you'll need to show the user the room policy and not join the room if it requires presence.
  292. southerntofu Kev, well i'm ok with a server mandating its rules, but why would the spec say my client MUST send my data??
  293. Kev southerntofu: We have the Security Considerations for that - but they’re only as good as the authors think of, and reviewers comment on.
  294. Kev southerntofu: Yes, there’s room for improving that wording.
  295. Sam Whited The client only MUST send the data if the room requires it. If the room doesn't require it (probably most rooms), you don't have to send the data. That's a pretty good privacy tradeoff.
  296. southerntofu Kev, wouldn't it be useful to have a dedicated mailing list / MUC to discuss privacy/security across the ecosystem and evaluate upcoming specs?
  297. mathieui southerntofu, that’s supposed to be part of the global process
  298. Sam Whited Yah, probably best to have them in public, no need for more low-traffic lists.
  299. Kev It would be useful to have people reviewing privacy/security. That’s not quite the same thing :)
  300. mathieui Kev, while you’re there, I’m unsure about the resource examples from mix participant jids in 0405
  301. southerntofu Kev, well i'm no expert at all, but i'm always happy to take some time to give a critical overview from an outsider's perspective (i don't have background on why all the technical decisions have been made)
  302. Kev The upcoming specs all get sent out on the standards list where people can review and make such comments. Realistically the number of people reviewing upcoming specs is relatively low.
  303. marmistrz has joined
  304. mathieui are they supposed to mean something or to be public?
  305. moparisthebest southerntofu, yea "impossible to define" because it means different things for different people is pretty much my point, I'm in private MUCs with my family hosted on the server in my closet, so presence is not a privacy problem at all (there)
  306. moparisthebest specs do have security concerns which is generally where privacy related stuff lives too I guess ?
  307. Kev mathieui - can you give a bit of text for me to search on, or section number please?
  308. mathieui Kev, e.g. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0405.html#usecase-user-presence-receive
  309. Kev The UUID-a1j/7533 bit?
  310. mathieui yes
  311. mathieui is it the resource of the client on the other side?
  312. mathieui and do we want to do resource leak in JID hidden channels?
  313. southerntofu moparisthebest, that makes sense though i'm not the best person for formal processes :P
  314. Kev This is the client’s resource, and it’s a long debate. We need unpredictable resources for a bunch of reasons. But at the Summit where we discussed this some people claimed that (despite XMPP already explicitly not guaranteeing your resource is the one you asked for) it was vital that they got the resource they asked for. So a two-part JID where the first half was server-provided, and the second half was client-provided was invented. It’s unrelated to MIX, it’s just the style that was used for those examples.
  315. southerntofu so anyway thanks for all these answers i'll further read the spec and try to come up with a patch, maybe write for the "security considerations"
  316. Sam Whited I still *really* hate that. The only argument that I remember was that it was needed for logging, in which case it seems like your logging system should just be better and not force server changes that you can't guarantee anyways.
  317. Sam Whited Requiring a weird two-part JID just feels like solving the problem from the wrong end and asking for trouble when people inevitably start assuming that's always the format and splitting on the / or whatever. Then again, maybe there were other better reasons I'm forgetting.
  318. Kev I *do* think we want clients to be able to be uniquely identified by their own server, FWIW.
  319. Kev But that’s not the same as saying it should be encoded in the resource.
  320. moparisthebest that's the thing that's optimizing for making it easier for human admins to scan XML streams and logs without server modifications right?
  321. moparisthebest always seemed beyond silly to me also
  322. tiaod has left
  323. Zash There's a disagreement on whether resources identify clients (ie are stable for the long term) or sessions (short lived).
  324. mathieui Ok, thanks.
  325. belong has joined
  326. mathieui I’ll pretend that this is an opaque identifier
  327. Sam Whited remembers the horrors of HipChat encoding stuff in the resourcepart that the client and server both had to be able to parse
  328. Sam Whited (not that that's what was happening with this split JID thing IIRC, but letting the client think it can guarantee anything being set is just too close for comfort)
  329. Zash continues to ignore all the /Conversations.XXXX resources everywhere
  330. Zash remembers Dino being upset if given a different resource than asked for (fixed now tho)
  331. Sam Whited just ignores anything the client requests and gives them a random resource.
  332. Kev I think what people encode in resources is up to them in a closed system (or if they’re a server in an open system, for that matter).
  333. Kev I know GTalk used to encode cluster routing information into the resources, and that seemed fine (smart, even) to me.
  334. Kev Wouldn’t work so well these days in the increasingly post-resource world, but back then it made sense.
  335. Sam Whited Oh yah, HipChat did that too and that part was nice, it was the bits the client had to understand that made it a problem, made upgrades difficult, broke them if the server didn't have it for some reason, etc.
  336. Sam Whited But yah, server sets the resource so if it wants to sneak some information in there it probably can't hurt anything.
  337. Sam Whited (assuming it does like I said and doesn't accept the resource from the client, which could lead to issues if a malicious client tries to sneak stuff in)
  338. raghavgururajan has left
  339. Yagizа has left
  340. debacle has joined
  341. pasdesushi has joined
  342. flow > A MIX channel MAY require that all participants publish presence how does a client discover this requirement? and how does a server know that a client complies?
  343. Meta Bergman has left
  344. flow mathieui> and do we want to do resource leak in JID hidden channels? there is a resource like in MIX hidden channels? could you point me to it?
  345. mathieui flow, I was pointing out that MIX-Presence supposed that you keep the resource even in the "anonymized" JID you get from the service
  346. mathieui (1234567#room@service/<preserved-resourced-from-real-presence>)
  347. mathieui ah no, it is addressed in 3.2
  348. flow 3.2 of which xep?
  349. mathieui 403
  350. mathieui https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0403.html#concept-jid-address
  351. mathieui These JIDs will be used to represent specific JID clients. The resource associated with the encoded JID can be either of the follipwing two options: The resource value from the associated client JID; or A mapped valued to an anonymized value. This approach MUST be used with MIX-ANON.
  352. mathieui not a fan of the encoded JID thing, to be honest, but I can see how that is something you may want for plugging it into existing presence-handling code
  353. Sam Whited Oh crap, when I thought that I didn't want to re-read thsi earlier and was complaining about the length I forgot there are actually 7 other XEPs some of which I'd need to also read in order to understand this. Yah, maybe I won't get to that this weekend.
  354. Sam Whited I guess technically it works with just core, so I'm going to pretend I didn't see that and try not to despair.
  355. Zash So summary XEP the broken down series is too long by itself?
  356. flow to be fair, I believe groupchat protocols are simply not short
  357. flow mathieui, which "encoded JID thing" exactly?
  358. Sam Whited Yah, it's true, it is a *big* thing no matter how you slice it, but that doesn't make me feel better about the work I'd have to do to support it :)
  359. flow hmm, if you have a decent PubSub/PEP support than creating a minimal MIX client implementation should be "easy". OTOH I did not do it yet in Smack, so I could be proven wrong.
  360. flow hmm, if you have a decent PubSub/PEP support then creating a minimal MIX client implementation should be "easy". OTOH I did not do it yet in Smack, so I could be proven wrong.
  361. mathieui flow, user JIDs are "<opaque id>#room@service"
  362. mathieui see any example in mix-presence https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0403.html#usecase-presence-leave
  363. flow mathieui, yeah right, you need to stuff the four-tule of (MIX service, room name, room-user id, and room-user session id) into a JID, which has at most three parts
  364. flow I would have design it similar, so I don't see the issue with it
  365. flow (I was considering adding the room-user id into the resource, but it appears all the same in the end)
  366. flow *four-tuple
  367. Sam Whited Guess I'll have to read pubsub (20 pages) and its smaller and simpler cousine because pubsub was too complex, pep (25 pages) as well. (not that I think mix would have been better of without using existing building blocks, I just don't think it's feasable for me to actually implement all of this any time soon)
  368. raghavgururajan has joined
  369. Zash 20 pages?
  370. flow Sam Whited, you have to look at it this way: MIX motivates you to implement PubSub, then PEP, and with that you have the building block for another dozens XEPs like bookmarks, avatars, …
  371. Sam Whited ish. I know it's not a great measurement, half of that is probably just version and appendices
  372. Zash How are you measuring?
  373. Sam Whited printed to PDF
  374. Zash Did you forget a zero?
  375. flow he didn't specify the paper format
  376. flow for all we know, it could be A2
  377. Zash The PDF version of 0060 is 182 pages, PEP is 19
  378. Zash or is this about one of the MIX XEPs?
  379. Sam Whited huh, that would make more sense, let's see what this did weird
  380. flow While cool kids have posters of their favorite swedish speed-death metal band on their wall, flow likes to look at walls full of specifications to read
  381. Sam Whited PEP is 20 for me (I was looking at the wrong one) but XEP-0060 appears to have printed (in that the first/last pages are correct), and it's also roughly 20, weird
  382. Sam Whited I did think it would be a lot longer thoug, so that's weird
  383. Zash Surely you mean 20 *stacks* of paper?
  384. edhelas still shorter than LOTR
  385. Zash We should resume the cut&paste we started in ... like 2014?
  386. flow Zash, IIRC it was 2015
  387. Sam Whited oh yah, there it goes, now it's 223 pages. No idea what happened last time or how it left pages out of the middle.
  388. jubalh has left
  389. flow The main problem you want to avoid with large specs like PubSub and MIX is unclarity about the required and optional parts. Ideally a XEP tells you early about the required parts and extension points for optional features, so that a developer can stop reading after them when starting an implementation. I think PubSub fails to do so.
  390. Sam Whited Yah, I tend to agree
  391. Sam Whited I was having a discussion with someone earlier who was saying they hoped the last holdouts from XMPP would switch over to working on / using Matrix, and while I pushed back against that for all the usual reasons, one of the things someone else said was that the Matrix specs were just a lot clearer and easier to build on top of even if you already started with a basic protocol implementation and were just developing features. I don't know if they had pubsub in mind when they said that, but I do suspec they're not wrong when I look at things like this.
  392. Sam Whited I don't really know how to improve that situation though, unfortunately.
  393. Kev Matrix is a chat system though, isn’t it?
  394. Zash It's a distributed JSON graph database.
  395. Sam Whited It's a protocol that's used for a lot of things in the same way XMPP is.
  396. Sam Whited But mostly for a chat system.
  397. Zash It does get further with "simple clients, complex servers" than current XMPP does, I'll give them that.
  398. Sam Whited Amusingly, this discussion took place over IRC.
  399. Sam Whited (for me, I assume they were on Matrix)
  400. asterix has left
  401. asterix has joined
  402. fade123 has left
  403. jubalh has joined
  404. flow I find the Matrix specifications on https://matrix.org/docs/spec/ heavily API centric, I am missing a description of their basic principles
  405. mathieui flow, that was also my conclusion a few years ago, this is an API documentation at most (maybe that got better even if it is not what you would like, I don’t know)
  406. flow I just skimmed over it, it appears to be a bit better now
  407. Zash JSON Web API all the things.
  408. flow eventually I always wondered if that "distributed graph" thing matrix does could also be done on top of XMPP, I see no reason why not
  409. Zash Sure you can
  410. raghavgururajan has left
  411. flow that would allow you to exploit an existing federated network, but HTTP and JSON where probably to tempting to use
  412. Sam Whited Sure, but if we write another 200 page spec to do it and mock them for using json instead of getting our own house in order it's probably not going to be very helpful.
  413. flow mocking them for using json is not helpful, right
  414. flow but writing and implementing a spec similar to matrix's distributed graph thingy should be fine
  415. Zash flow: you thinking MAM replication instead of routing, or something?
  416. flow right, but then again, I am fine with centralized room management
  417. flow not sure if we need to have something that provides eventual consistency
  418. raghavgururajan has joined
  419. flow there are surely distributed systems where you want to have eventual consistency, but can't think of a reason why federated groupchats should be based on such a system
  420. flow if you want availability, use an server implementation that supports clustering
  421. flow I'd love to hear the take on a Matrix person on that
  422. mathieui flow, I don’t really have much insight over how matrix works, I assume the replication & eventual consistency allow a more "resilient" view over rooms, without additional requirements for the server "hosting" the room for real
  423. Zash they usually compare it to git
  424. mathieui You can probably interact with the people on your own server who are also in that room, and that counts as delayed writes when the "real" room gets back online
  425. mathieui I mean, that is an interesting property to have, against outages, censorship, etc
  426. mathieui (I am only speculating obviously, I don’t know if that is even possible, as reconciliation between all of that state must be a real pain in the neck)
  427. flow mathieui, use a high-availability cluster to reduce outages, planed maintainance is usually not an issue, not sure how it helps against censorship
  428. Zash flow: you can remove a server and the room lives on on other servers
  429. mathieui flow, in the event of a server being bleeped out of existence by a powerful actor, instead of a whole lot of nothing, you have split communities across the ecosystem
  430. flow also, what incentivies servers to keep state of rooms the don't "own"
  431. Zash flow: now that's a question
  432. Zash and how do you enforce moderation, bans etc?
  433. flow potentially someone will answer, "no server owns a room", but the question still applies
  434. mathieui flow, well for matrix, "because that’s the protocol", but otherwise, I don’t know
  435. southerntofu flow, my understanding of the matrix model is censorship-resilience.. if my server with high availability gets seized/disconnected/attacked other people can continue chatting as if nothing happened.. it's not in my threat model, but i understand the value of it eg. for a wikileaks chan :)
  436. Zash blockchain? probably blockchain.
  437. southerntofu (ah people just said the same sorry i was reading backlog)
  438. flow southerntofu, sure that is a very nice property in theory. but doesn't that somehow imply that all servers need to keep all the state for eternity?
  439. mathieui (and if that is a desired property, then you need to put it in the base protocol to have the incentive "this must work")
  440. flow notsurehowthiscouldscale
  441. Zash I tried reading the s2s spec once and it gave me a headache. Quite the opposite of XMPP s2s where you just open a stream and send stuff.
  442. southerntofu flow, not necessary for all eternity, but sure that's the main problem with matrix servers lol
  443. Daniel has left
  444. mathieui I don’t want to try to read the specs again, but I imagine you must have the latest state to be able to send writes to the upstream server
  445. southerntofu i mean i understand why you would support this use case in some circumstances, but making it the default takes hardware requirements through the roof
  446. mathieui which require you to effectively maintain the state internally
  447. flow mathieui, I don't think this is true
  448. flow if it is a dag, then you just need to have some dag node
  449. flow and eventually someone will reconcile
  450. flow but you should be able to write without having the latest state, I mean that is the core of eventual consistency
  451. southerntofu flow, though another interesting property is because so many beefy servers store the state, you can host your server on a very unstable uplink that often gets disconnected from the internet, without resulting in eg. netsplits alla IRC :)
  452. mathieui I don’t know how the state is managed and what is accepted and what isn’t so I will not try to extrapolate further
  453. flow southerntofu, that's actually a very good point
  454. flow XMPP links are very fragile if the reciving end is on a low-bandwith connection
  455. flow XMPP links are very fragile if the receiving end is on a low-bandwith connection
  456. flow IMHO one of XMPPs biggest weakness
  457. flow OTOH, MIX/MAM mitigates this (a bit)
  458. southerntofu flow, yes that's why FMUC was so interesting, though i still have to finish reading MIX spec because they said there was something equivalent :)
  459. Zash Still tricky with s2s outages
  460. flow Zash, right
  461. flow I think if I where to do XMPP again, I would base it on pulling, not pushing
  462. flow because with pulling, the receiver can determine the rate
  463. eta drops https://theta.eu.org/2019/10/10/nea-federation-design.html in here
  464. jubalh has left
  465. southerntofu flow, doesn't PubSub support pull modes?
  466. flow southerntofu, sure it does
  467. flow but I was talking about pulling a first-class principle
  468. Zash This reminds me, has anyone looked at MLS? I read the architecture doc and it talked about requiring guaranteed eventual delivery.
  469. flow e.g. sending a message is just putting the message into your server's archive, the server informs the recipient about the new message. once the recipients server has pulled the message, the "pending messages" flag is cleared
  470. southerntofu flow, isn't that what happens already when an s2s message can't be delivered?
  471. southerntofu isn't there like MAM for s2s? :P
  472. Zash southerntofu: there is not
  473. southerntofu oooh, my bad for assuming otherwise :)
  474. flow southerntofu, not exactly, and even if, not potentially
  475. southerntofu sounds like it could be useful
  476. Zash MAM for s2s would pretty much be the "matrix over xmpp" flow mentioned earlier
  477. southerntofu well matrix over XMPP would be that + guaranteeing eventual consistency between several nodes who all act as authority for a resources (which is way more comlpex)
  478. flow Isn't "MAM for s2s" a little bit to vague? Hmm, but yes, if it is vague, then it could be pretty much everything ;)
  479. Zash flow: You could also figure out s2s+198 with resumption.
  480. Zash Not graph stuff tho
  481. flow Zash, sure, but what I have in mind is much more radical
  482. Zash flow: wanna write a xep about `<previous id="mam id of previous message"/>` and how to use that to magic together archives?
  483. southerntofu eta, i love your article (not finished reading just yet), the "sponsoring servers" is precisely what MX/NS secondary servers are about :P
  484. flow Zash, once I get a better grasp about where this is exaclty going, why not. :)
  485. flow uh, and I would need to fall into a pot of gold first, so that I can take the required time to do so :)
  486. Zash flow: Lets you detect holes in archives at least, if you receive a message with a pointer to a previous message you don't have. Throw some graph theory at it and call it Matrix over XMPP.
  487. flow hmm, having an extension that points to the preceeding message in <{mam:2}result/> actually does not sound like a bad idea
  488. flow we don't we have that already?
  489. southerntofu eta, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.html sounds a lot like what you're talking about (federated MUC) :)
  490. Zash flow: not unless you count rsm, but it's not excatly that
  491. flow thinking about it <{mam:2}fin/> is probably the better place
  492. Zash flow: I was thinking about this for live messages
  493. Zash For patching up after s2s outages
  494. Zash Remember how MIX and s2s outages is an unsolved problem :)
  495. eta southerntofu: indeed!
  496. eta shame nothing implements it though
  497. Zash eta: you don't happen to have markdown sources for that blog somewhere? I like to convert to .epub for reading and source files tend to be less messy than converting from html.
  498. eta Zash: sure https://theta.eu.org/lx/selif/zmc58s7b.md
  499. eta (can do other posts if you want)
  500. Kev Zash: Undocumented solution, but I’m sure I discussed how to address it at the summit last year or the year before. Indeed, just by signalling there’s a hole.
  501. southerntofu eta, it doesn't look over complicated to implement.. also i need to finished reading MIX spec but it looks like there's some stuff about that in there too :)
  502. fade123 has joined
  503. pasdesushi has left
  504. oibalos has left
  505. oibalos has joined
  506. asterix has left
  507. asterix has joined
  508. lovetox_ has joined
  509. eta has left
  510. eta has joined
  511. eta has left
  512. jubalh has joined
  513. eta has joined
  514. asterix has left
  515. asterix has joined
  516. marmistrz has left
  517. goffi has left
  518. goffi has joined
  519. marmistrz has joined
  520. jubalh has left
  521. stpeter has joined
  522. kikuchiyo has left
  523. mikeye has joined
  524. Ge0rG has left
  525. marmistrz has left
  526. Ge0rG has joined
  527. Ge0rG has left
  528. Ge0rG has joined
  529. raghavgururajan has left
  530. jubalh has joined
  531. jubalh has left
  532. oibalos has left
  533. oibalos has joined
  534. friendlyOtter has joined
  535. friendlyOtter On xmpp.org they mention stroke as client library. A quick look around in the java world and i found camel-quarkus-xmpp. Any advice/remarks on that one?
  536. Sam Whited I haven't used it, but that looks like it's just a simple thing to get XMPP messages into/out of their integration framework, not a full XMPP library?
  537. Sam Whited There's also babbler if you're just looking for something in Java: https://bitbucket.org/sco0ter/babbler/src
  538. friendlyOtter ok thnx i'll look at that too
  539. pasdesushi has joined
  540. pasdesushi has left
  541. pasdesushi has joined
  542. debacle has left
  543. friendlyOtter has left
  544. pasdesushi has left
  545. pasdesushi has joined
  546. oibalos has left
  547. goffi has left
  548. riau.sni has joined
  549. riau.sni has left
  550. pasdesushi has left
  551. 00 has joined
  552. asterix has left
  553. larma has left
  554. Vaulor has left
  555. asterix has joined
  556. mikeye has left
  557. pasdesushi has joined
  558. 00 has left
  559. larma has joined
  560. tiaod has joined
  561. pasdesushi has left
  562. pasdesushi has joined