XSF Discussion - 2011-09-21

  1. Tobias has joined

  2. luca tagliaferri has joined

  3. koski has joined

  4. koski has left

  5. luca tagliaferri has left

  6. luca tagliaferri has joined

  7. stpeter has joined

  8. luca tagliaferri has left

  9. Neustradamus

    stpeter: XEP-0045 1.25 rc6 is released or not?

  10. Jehan has joined

  11. Jehan


  12. luca tagliaferri has joined

  13. Jehan

    Hmmm... I am sad. I think I will miss again the meeting. :-(

  14. Jehan

    Damn timezones! I really wanted to come for today's meeting but I have to leave.

  15. Jehan

    Have a nice meeting, all!

  16. stpeter

    thanks, Jehan

  17. Jehan

    Yep stpeter. I was hoping I could participate to the discussion (if any) for my XEP proposal.

  18. Jehan

    But I am currently in Tokyo and a friend is leaving Japan tomorrow. So there is a goodbye party.

  19. Jehan

    Anyway bye.

  20. Jehan has left

  21. Kev has left

  22. Kev has joined

  23. luca tagliaferri has left

  24. luca tagliaferri has joined

  25. stpeter

    T-2 minutes?

  26. stpeter


  27. Florian has joined

  28. Florian

    hi everyone

  29. Florian

    Board Meeting time, right?

  30. stpeter

    that's my understanding :)

  31. Florian

    Will, Nyco and Jack missing?

  32. stpeter

    jack is online, let me invite him

  33. Florian

    just realized, Swift can't invite to MUC?

  34. stpeter

    Kev said he's working on Swift's MUC support :)

  35. Florian


  36. stpeter

    he wants the ability to kick people, at least

  37. Kev

    I'll do invites once Tobias's FT support is integrated.

  38. Kev

    Don't want to create too many merge conflicts for him.

  39. Florian


  40. Florian

    Agenda: http://typewith.me/xsf

  41. jack has joined

  42. jack

    hello all

  43. Kev

    I like the way you've filled in who's going to be turning up beforehand :D

  44. stpeter

    sometimes direct IM works better than room invites

  45. Florian

    haha, it was there from the last meeting :)

  46. Florian

    Saved June 29, 2011

  47. Florian


  48. Florian

    any other topics?

  49. stpeter

    I don't have any other topics

  50. bear

    Server Certification - cool topic

  51. stpeter

    the big question is, are we serious about server certification and if so how do we make it happen?

  52. Florian


  53. bear

    before we can even consider that, we have to have a test suite in place

  54. stpeter

    as I said, probably I can raise some money for this (e.g., to help pay for travel to get the right people in one place), but I think the bigger challenge is to organize and motivate the work

  55. Florian

    well, I think we should have a spec

  56. Florian

    i.e. what needs to be tested, what needs to be supported for different certifications

  57. bear

    also we would need to discuss if we do levels of certification

  58. Florian


  59. Kev

    Perhaps it might be interesting to find some organisation that wants to test server compliance or interop, and find out what their requirements are. Try to build something for them first, and go from there?

  60. stpeter

    Florian: how is that different from http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0302.html and the more detailed features listed in RFC 6120 etc?

  61. jack

    PDF has a series of test suites that people can run

  62. jack

    i wonder how those are done

  63. jack

    it might be useful to look at what other test suites do before embarking on our own

  64. bear

    I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the IETF someone has done certifying

  65. Florian


  66. stpeter

    "Certify" might be a strong term

  67. bear

    compliance suite?

  68. stpeter

    (semi-)automated interop testing is probably the right place to start

  69. bear


  70. Florian


  71. Florian

    something along the lines of the W3C Validator

  72. stpeter


  73. stpeter

    that's what I have in mind

  74. Florian

    looking at XEP-302 ... maybe even add federation to that?

  75. bear

    then xsf would need to host the service and allow people to point it at their servers

  76. Florian


  77. stpeter

    Florian: you might be right that we need a more focused spec that describes the s2s scope more precisly

  78. Kev

    I think there's much more value in having sometheng people can run themselves off the 'Net.

  79. Florian

    stpeter: yeah

  80. Kev

    'Net-based ones are great for devs testing their own systems, but less so for some organisation wanting to validate a bunch of services internally.

  81. Florian

    hmm, another question is .... do we "certify" server software or server deployments?

  82. Kev

    So both modes would be ideal.

  83. bear

    having a validation service we then could also start advertising the scores/results of people who run against it

  84. Florian

    bear: indeed

  85. bear

    the source for a validation service would allow for in-house use by vendors

  86. Florian


  87. Florian

    I think there's two ways of seeing this ...

  88. stpeter

    bear: makes sense

  89. Florian

    one is to test compliance of a running server (does federation work, valid certs installed....) and the other one is more internal, i.e. does PubSub work the way it's supposed to

  90. stpeter

    I think that most serious XMPP server developers have such test suites internally, the challenge is working on something common for the greater good

  91. Florian

    for the first one, a W3C online tool would be awesome (target: sysadmins)

  92. Will has joined

  93. Kev

    stpeter: Knowing your own stuff works, is different from knowing someone else's works, though.

  94. Florian

    the other one, the target is the server vendors

  95. Will

    shit - we changed the time didn't we

  96. Florian

    Hi Will :)

  97. stpeter

    Will: yeah

  98. Will


  99. stpeter

    Will: but at least Jack's able to join us at this time :)

  100. jack has left

  101. Will

    so, what have I missed?

  102. jack has joined

  103. Florian

    so what do you guys think of maybe splitting this up into 2 things ... a test suite for developers, and a test site for deployments/sysadmins

  104. bear

    talking about server certification/validation and running it as a system for people to point at their servers

  105. Florian

    Will: Server Certification

  106. Tobias

    this is planned to be purely functionality based testing, right?

  107. bear

    if the tool is written to have suites of tests and to output to a file, then the web service part becomes just an html display of that output

  108. bear

    and the file is available for downloading

  109. stpeter


  110. stpeter

    Tobias: yes!

  111. dwd has joined

  112. stpeter

    Tobias: no scalability testing

  113. Tobias

    stpeter, yeah..there are enough tools for that ;)

  114. Florian


  115. stpeter

    Tobias: well, we've always avoided scalability testing because there are more variables, set up matters a lot, etc.

  116. Tobias

    stpeter, i know/just getting to know :)

  117. stpeter

    and we're supposed to know something about the protocol :)

  118. Florian


  119. stpeter

    sorry, interruption here, bbiaf

  120. bear

    seems that we need to 1) gather up tests that could be in said suite 2) start working on python/lua code to test said items and 3) rinse/repeat

  121. Florian


  122. dwd

    Who's doing the work?

  123. bear

    I mention python/lua code as those are common enough languages that have modern xmpp support libs

  124. Florian

    so you guys don't think there should be 2 seperate projects?

  125. bear

    this is something i've always been interested in - I would love to have a chance to work on this

  126. Florian

    one for deployments a la W3C and one for the actual code?

  127. bear

    I think we should start small and simple and iterate

  128. dwd

    Florian, I think a "Verified by XSF" thing for a particular service seems sensible.

  129. bear

    a project like this could get mired down in politics and/or apathy if the goal is too broad

  130. Florian


  131. stpeter


  132. bear likes "Verified by XSF"

  133. stpeter

    bear: totally agreed on politics or apathy

  134. Will

    as long as we make sure that people don't read "verified" as "approved"

  135. stpeter


  136. bear

    heck, the first steps would be a spreadsheet of what to test with a column pointing to source snippets on how to test for that

  137. stpeter

    Florian: I think bear is right that the validator would just be a public interface to the verifier

  138. stpeter

    (if that makes sense)

  139. bear

    it's how the Atom folks did their service

  140. bear

    a test suite that can be driven by a fancier web interface

  141. stpeter


  142. Florian


  143. bear

    probably a good start would be to get a wiki page of what to test and then just announce it to the list and start iterating on that

  144. stpeter glances at the "Programming in Lua" book on his desk

  145. Florian


  146. stpeter


  147. bear

    having it as a lua and python lib would be a great success

  148. Florian


  149. stpeter

    I'm language agnostic really, just want to use something that will draw in or keep contributors

  150. Florian

    might be something for the hackfest in February?

  151. stpeter

    Florian: that's the idea, yes

  152. stpeter

    Florian: and I could probably get funding to pay for travel costs of the top contributors :)

  153. Florian


  154. bear

    I will ask Mozilla to see if they will sponsor me on this

  155. stpeter logs into wiki.xmpp.org

  156. bear


  157. Will


  158. bear

    I liked the short/simple one for Interop

  159. stpeter


  160. bear

    so went with that flavour

  161. bear

    I had a good set of talks with the moz folks who are working on backend systems last week

  162. stpeter

    BTW we have an interop@xmpp.org list if we want to use it http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/interop

  163. bear

    I think that mailing list would be perfect

  164. Florian


  165. Will

    this is terribly rude but i have to go in a minute or two, have we decided and is there anything more to discuss?

  166. stpeter

    don't want to spam standards@

  167. stpeter

    Will: I think we're done for now

  168. bear

    not rude at all Will - perfectly timed as I think we are close to being done officially

  169. Florian

    yup :)

  170. bear

    so +1 to a verification suite to be driven by XSF?

  171. Will

    well, it is kind of cheeky as i forgot to turn up on time :-)

  172. Will


  173. stpeter


  174. stpeter

    easy enough to set up a separate git repository once we have code

  175. bear


  176. luca tagliaferri has left

  177. bear

    I would love to take point on this along with anyone else

  178. dwd

    Is that possible? Surely you either take point, or you don't? Otherwise it's not a "point", as such...

  179. Florian

    I'd be happy to help

  180. stpeter

    bear: I might be able to interest some folks in Cisco to help

  181. bear loves having folks like dwd in his life

  182. stpeter

    and I'll commit to putting time into this, too

  183. Kev

    dwd: That'd be to 'take blob', wouldn't it?

  184. Kev

    Or 'take disorganised heap' or such.

  185. dwd

    Kev, Or "take blunt".

  186. Kev

    Or that.

  187. stpeter

    maybe I could learn some lua (or re-learn some Python) along the way :)

  188. Florian


  189. bear

    well, I fubar'd GSoC this season so I want to redeem myself

  190. dwd

    Kev, But this is a "pointless" discussion.

  191. dwd is particularly pleased with that one.

  192. stpeter


  193. Florian


  194. bear

    well done!

  195. bear oozes his blob over dwd and kev in hopes of blunting any further puns

  196. stpeter must be missing some context

  197. Will has left

  198. bear

    ok now :) - we have agreed on that

  199. bear

    any further items to discuss?

  200. Florian

    not from my end

  201. stpeter

    bear: once we have a basic wiki page describing the project, I can send a message to standards@xmpp.org and jdev@jabber.org (plus the members list)

  202. bear


  203. Florian


  204. bear

    deadline of next board meeting to have wiki page done?

  205. Florian

    sounds good

  206. bear

    or do you want 2 meetings worth of time?

  207. stpeter


  208. stpeter

    I think a week is enough

  209. bear


  210. stpeter

    at least for the basic description

  211. bear


  212. stpeter

    bear: we also (still) have xmpp:interop@muc.xmpp.org

  213. dwd

    Is there a plan for verifying the verifier? Like, having leave to appeal to Council to review any discrepencies, or something?

  214. bear

    I think we would have to have the council certify it

  215. Florian


  216. bear

    (this also will give the next council something very interesting to look forward to)

  217. dwd

    I think you'd need to have them on-hand to check results, especially in the case where the verifier complains and the implementor disputes it.

  218. bear


  219. Florian


  220. bear

    they would be the final authority - because that would also drive changes to the specs

  221. dwd

    bear, Well, I'm not sure - mostly, it'd probably find bugs in the verifier or its libraries.

  222. stpeter

    bear: yes, I think this will drive some fixes to the specs, better lists of testable features (along the lines of what's in RFC 6120), etc.

  223. stpeter

    dwd: true

  224. bear

    :) - I'm being optimistic that the verifier will be perfect!

  225. bear coughs and returns to reality

  226. stpeter

    who's the room owner for interop@muc.xmpp.org?

  227. Florian

    good question

  228. dwd

    stpeter, Kev?

  229. dwd

    stpeter, He more or less ran the last Interop.

  230. jack has left

  231. jack has joined

  232. Kev

    Possibly me, I guess.

  233. stpeter


  234. Kev


  235. bear has joined

  236. Kev has joined

  237. bear has left

  238. bear has joined

  239. Florian has joined

  240. dwd has joined

  241. stpeter has joined

  242. stpeter

    bear: I've edited the minutes at http://typewith.me/xsf

  243. stpeter

    I think they're good to go now

  244. bear

    yep, been watching

  245. stpeter

    heh ok :)

  246. bear

    cool - i'll send them out now

  247. stpeter


  248. stpeter

    I'm psyched

  249. bear


  250. bear

    me also - will be a nice fall/winter project

  251. stpeter

    heh ... winterop? ;-)

  252. Florian


  253. stpeter goes back to reviewing Internet-Drafts for tomorrow's IESG telechat

  254. bear goes back to herding Tegra250 boards

  255. stpeter


  256. stpeter

    you and I are heading in opposite directions :)

  257. bear

    yea, I'm in very barren lands it seems

  258. Kooda has joined

  259. stpeter

    Neustradamus: I fixed the "www.xmpp.org" stuff in the XEP Python scripts

  260. Neustradamus has joined

  261. Neustradamus

    stpeter: ok :)

  262. Neustradamus

    for emails or proposal XEPs ?

  263. stpeter

    Neustradamus: I will soon be AFK for a few hours but I will be back later

  264. Neustradamus

    it is possible to modify the theme of xmpp.org and jabber.org ?

  265. Neustradamus

    In the theme folder / misc/nav-posts.php <div class="pagination"> <span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('&laquo; Previous', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> <span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Next &raquo;', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> </div> change to <div class="pagination"> <span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('&laquo; Next', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> <span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Previous &raquo;', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span> </div>

  266. Neustradamus

    stpeter: ok :)

  267. stpeter

    Neustradamus: for inbox proposals, last calls, and deferred specs

  268. Neustradamus


  269. stpeter

    Neustradamus: those were the only scripts that still had www

  270. stpeter

    Neustradamus: I think that might be fixed in a more recent version of the theme, so the first step is to upgrade

  271. Neustradamus

    an example of pages: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind.html

  272. Neustradamus

    the redirection is not updated (not alone)

  273. stpeter

    some of those do not redirect for historical reasons -- we want to keep the old versions online

  274. stpeter

    ah, I see

  275. Neustradamus

    you see :)

  276. stpeter

    yeah, we can fix that in the lighttpd config

  277. Neustradamus

    not directly in the page ?

  278. stpeter

    about http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/ -- yes we keep those old versions around (or don't put the time into fixing them)

  279. Neustradamus

    I found new old addresses: http://www.jabber.org/tmp/ (redirect to http://www.jabber.org/ ?) http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/ (http://logs.jabber.org/ now?)

  280. Neustradamus


  281. stpeter

    no, easier to fix that in the server config -- I don't want to change every one of the old .html files

  282. stpeter


  283. Neustradamus


  284. Neustradamus

    I found a "very" old page: http://www.jabber.org/service-policy/ Personal Eventing Protocol has been removed... Can you add a XMPP URI for jabber@conference.jabber.org ? Change the part with 5223 port... Change "<http://logs.jabber.org/>" to http://logs.jabber.org/ Change "JabberID" to "Jabber ID" Change "policy will be posted at www.jabber.org and" to "policy will be posted at jabber.org and t" (remove www.) In "How to Contact Us" part : there is a link to http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=21 (dead) Update old xmpp.org links to new links On http://www.jabber.org/about/ http://www.jabber.org/index.php/network/ to http://www.jabber.org/network/ http://www.jabber.org/index.php/download-a-client/ to http://www.jabber.org/download-a-client/ Update http://xmpp.org/services/ to http://xmpp.org/resources/public-services/ Update other xmpp.org links on other pages. http://xmpp.org/extensions/all.shtml is dead ?

  285. Neustradamus

    Kev: http://logs.jabber.org/ it is possible to have same logs for all? old and new?

  286. stpeter

    Neustradamus: why does it matter that we have old links with index.php in them? they redirect just fine!

  287. stpeter

    that's why we set up redirects :)

  288. stpeter

    time for lunch here...

  289. Neustradamus

    stpeter: ok ok for logs

  290. Neustradamus

    stpeter: you can close http://tracker.xmpp.org/browse/ITEAM-12 ;)

  291. Neustradamus

    about logs, there are double... http://logs.jabber.org/ and http://logs.jabber.org/old/ there are same.

  292. Neustradamus

    and http://logs.jabber.org/new/ too :D

  293. stpeter


  294. stpeter

    now I really need to be away for a while

  295. stpeter

    Neustradamus: jabber.org is *not* an XSF service, so please post about that in the jabber@conference.jabber.org room

  296. stpeter


  297. Neustradamus

    stpeter: yes

  298. Astro has joined

  299. Astro


  300. Astro

    will all validator-relevant stuff be posted on interop@?

  301. bear

    astro - most likely yes

  302. bear

    and please do poke us if you notice anything not on interop@

  303. Astro


  304. Astro

    maybe the node.js xmpp-server is going to be ready for interop testing at next fosdem

  305. bear


  306. MiGri has joined