jdev - 2021-06-05

  1. Sam

    Was there a competing spec to Easy User Onboarding that din't require the round trip with the server and just had tokens generated in a specific format so that you could just share the key and have some other entity sign onboarding tokens, or did I just imagine that?

  2. MattJ

    Then how does the account get created?

  3. Sam

    When the client scans the barcode and sends the token to the server the account gets created

  4. Sam

    It just let other entities sign tokens I thought so that they didn't have to have any connection to the server but the server could verify that something with the private key said "this user can create an account"

  5. Sam

    Maybe this was a HipChat provisioning thing or just something I thought about doing but never did and I got it mixed up with Easy User Onboarding at some point.

  6. MattJ

    Prosody can technically do that kind of thing, it's how I originally intended it to work... but I ended up with an API to request tokens, it's just easier for a bunch of reasons

  7. MattJ

    I was considering a service to which operators could outsource spam registration filtering

  8. MattJ

    For an example use-case

  9. MattJ

    So something like joinjabber.org would be a trusted entity able to generate invite tokens for servers on its list

  10. Sam

    I was wondering if it made sense to just add a specific (optional) token format to Easy User Onboarding for the registration flow, but this document is a *lot* rougher than I remembered. Tons of TODOs. I really wish we wouldn't accept things like this until they're actually sort of flushed out.

  11. Sam

    Maybe it's not worth it and I should just add something to IBR2 eventually if that ever gets adopted.

  12. Sam

    Oh wait, there's also Pre-Authenticated In-Band Registration. I forgot that was a separate thing. No idea what the difference is, guess I need to re-read this one too.

  13. MattJ

    I'm with you on not accepting documents with significant TODOs

  14. MattJ

    You need to look at the previous revision of that XEP though

  15. MattJ

    Things got complicated :)

  16. MattJ

    We published a new revision with some gaps closed, but didn't get author approval so it was reverted

  17. MattJ

    We have consensus on how to move forward but I don't think that's submitted yet

  18. Sam

    Thanks; I'll go catch up