XSF Discussion - 2013-12-02

  1. Jef has joined
  2. bear has left
  3. tato has joined
  4. Zash has joined
  5. Jef has left
  6. Lance has left
  7. bear has joined
  8. tato has left
  9. tato has joined
  10. bear has left
  11. tato has left
  12. tato has joined
  13. Lance has joined
  14. tato has left
  15. Kev has joined
  16. SouL has joined
  17. Kev has left
  18. Alex has joined
  19. Alex has left
  20. Kev has joined
  21. Zash has joined
  22. Zash has left
  23. Lance has joined
  24. Zash has joined
  25. dwd has joined
  26. ralphm Simon: could you send me a copy of the e-mail you sent to Adewale. I was enjoying my weekend.
  27. Laura has joined
  28. Laura has left
  29. Lloyd has joined
  30. Jef has joined
  31. Kev has left
  32. Jef has left
  33. SouL has left
  34. Kev has joined
  35. SouL has joined
  36. SouL has left
  37. SouL has joined
  38. Zash has left
  39. Alex has left
  40. Kev has left
  41. stpeter has joined
  42. Zash has joined
  43. Lloyd has left
  44. Lloyd has joined
  45. bear has joined
  46. Lance has joined
  47. Lloyd has left
  48. Kev has joined
  49. Kev Getting to this thing tonight is not proving easy!
  50. stpeter this thing = ?
  51. Kev London XMPP meeting.
  52. Alex has joined
  53. Kev has left
  54. Kev has left
  55. Kev Is anyone in here going?
  56. Kev At this point it's not clear it's worthwhile me trying to make it, as it'd be half seven or eight before I got there.
  57. bear I don't think so
  58. Kev Ta.
  59. bear all of the people I know who are going are already there for the IoT part
  60. Simon Kev - Lloyd is there
  61. Jef has joined
  62. Simon lloydwatkin@googlemail.com
  63. stpeter chat with him while you still can :P
  64. Simon heh
  65. bear power failure! oh no!
  66. Kev And I'm still in the office. I'm really not making this :/
  67. Kev Simon: Is that Lloyd's email addr. as well?
  68. stpeter Kev: sorry to hear it :(
  69. Simon lloyd.watkin@surevine.com
  70. Kev Murky.
  71. ralphm Kev: who's the slave driver keeping you there?
  72. Kev Circumstance.
  73. ralphm Odd name
  74. stpeter :)
  75. stpeter tries to figure out his priorities for the remainder of the year
  76. ralphm 1) avoid certain IETF mailing lists
  77. Kev 2) avoid uncertain IETF mailing lists?
  78. ralphm 3) done
  79. Simon Peter - your last paragraph reads very oddly: "Ideally, Google would decide to either shut off federation with the XMPP network entirely or at least support unauthenticated TLS for server-to-server connections. The limbo we're in is unfortunate."
  80. Simon Makes it sound like it would be ideal for google to stop federating :)
  81. Kev It reads as if stopping federation is best, and if they can't do that then they could at least TLS.
  82. Kev Yes.
  83. stpeter at this point, the lack of features and security in Google Talk is holding back progress, no?
  84. stpeter I agree that I might not have expressed myself very well
  85. Simon If progress = more features then yes. If progress = user_count, then no.
  86. ralphm Simon: weren't you the guy who wrote 'we tried to ignore as much of XMPP as possible'?
  87. ralphm :-D
  88. Simon yes - because I think a lot of it is features that are irrelevent to 99% of end users.
  89. stpeter progress = better security
  90. stpeter (in this context)
  91. Simon Agree on better security. But it's a hard sell to server operators with paying customers and we might need to find a more nuanced solution. (/me really doesn't want opt-outs when it comes to TLS so I hope we can find a sensible way for Google to turn on TLS)
  92. ralphm Simon: my point is that if you want to promote using XMPP for anything, this is not promoting it, either. Even if it makes sense for *your* use cases, others disagree.
  93. ralphm As for Google, I don't give us a lot of odds getting this sorted out with them.
  94. Simon ralph: I'm talking about how we used it for our use case.
  95. ralphm Simon: *I* understand the context. For other people you are 'one of those XSF Board members'.
  96. Simon eg - we ignore vcards, we ignore PEP, we ignore as much as possible
  97. ralphm worthsmithing is not fun, but yeah
  98. Simon not in that email to Mozilla - I was very clear about how we used it for buddycloud. Buddycloud is not the XSF.
  99. ralphm Simon: again, I see that difference.
  100. tato has joined
  101. ralphm Not saying people at Mozilla are stupid, but, you know, people are busy and have different contexts.
  102. Simon Did anyone hear back from any Google folk today? Peter - were you able to ping any of your contacts?
  103. stpeter I shall do that now
  104. ralphm Similarly, as someone mentioned before in the board meeting, people outside of the XMPP community might see the Manifest as an XSF thing, even though it technically isn't. We need to be aware of such perceptions.
  105. Simon Ralph - I hear what you are saying - but we have to also address the fear that XMPP=100s of XEPs that must be followed. We know that they are optional. But someone at Mozilla or any other developer will look at XMPP and fear that it's a huge set of specs.
  106. ralphm Agreed
  107. Simon We should be clear about that - since we're discussing it here, at the Summit and at Board meetings then.
  108. ralphm As I said, we need to be careful in how we word things.
  109. ralphm I also wonder why people don't think of the IETF as 7000 of specifications you must implement to do anything on internet.
  110. stpeter as someone said recently on Twitter, XMPP is the C++ of messaging protocols :P
  111. Simon I have to say it sounds a little odd having a security initiative and then following it up by saying this ISN'T endorsed by the XSF.
  112. ralphm Nobody has said such a thing.
  113. ralphm The XSF might, still.
  114. bear then we should be talking about that now
  115. ralphm I do know that one of the initial responses I got was that (large?) companies generally don't really like manifestos.
  116. bear test day can be seperate from the manifesto
  117. ralphm sure it can
  118. stpeter large companies might not generally like security, either ;-)
  119. Simon Manifesto can be the trigger if that makes you feel more confortable. IMHO this is a really important selling point of XMPP and it's not quite right yet when you look at the results coming out of XMPP.net. (although getting better).
  120. ralphm Well, I think that if you recently publicly stated that you are going to start encrypting all your inter-DC traffic, you kinda care.
  121. stpeter ralphm: you might care about protecting your stuff but not your customer's stuff
  122. Simon ralphm - I hope so.
  123. ralphm If we arrive at 19 May, and this list *isn't* looking good then, yeah, we kinda failed.
  124. stpeter but I can't speculate about motivations, because I simply don't know
  125. Simon I'll ping Ade now and see if he heard anything.
  126. stpeter ralphm: if much more of our traffic is encrypted, then we've succeeded
  127. ralphm stpeter: good point
  128. Lloyd has joined
  129. Simon To me the most frustrating part is not even getting an ACK back from anyone at Google's XMPP team.
  130. ralphm Simon: welcome to our world
  131. Simon Jonas has generally been really helpful when I've pinged him about other issues.
  132. dwd Simon, Arguably, Google no longer has an XMPP team. I suspect the federation is running largely because it's not yet caused any further problems.
  133. stpeter dwd: the thought has crossed my mind
  134. Simon Do they need to call in the A-Team?
  135. dwd stpeter, I think there's also the impact of the IETF folk using it for meetings. It'd cause embarrassment if that failed. It has occured to me that if we could persuade the IETF to go encrypted, we might force the issue.
  136. stpeter dwd: well, you've seen the discussions about https for ietf.org, I take it :-)
  137. stpeter dwd: I gave a warning about this in my remarks at the plenary
  138. dwd Oh, I didn't see that.
  139. ralphm do you think it is a big issue?
  140. stpeter dwd: I was the last person to go to the mic at the technical plenary in Vancouver
  141. Kev "as someone said recently on Twitter, XMPP is the C++ of messaging protocols :P" Wow, that's really high praise
  142. stpeter ;-)
  143. Kev dwd: You mean there was someone who /wasn't/ watching that plenary?
  144. Kev has left
  145. jabberjocke has joined
  146. Kev has joined
  147. Kev has left
  148. Kev has joined
  149. stpeter has left
  150. stpeter has joined
  151. bear has left
  152. Lloyd has left
  153. tato has left
  154. fippo frankly, as long as jabber.org deploys tls-only that's enough for me
  155. fippo this will cause waves and break things
  156. fippo things that ought to be fixed.
  157. tato has joined
  158. fippo dwd: i'm showing googles webrtc team that ignoring jingle and xmpp is a very bad thing currently (-:
  159. stpeter nods to fippo
  160. tato has left
  161. tato has joined
  162. Jef has left
  163. tato has left
  164. dwd has left
  165. Lloyd has joined
  166. dwd has joined
  167. tato has joined
  168. tato has left
  169. dwd has left
  170. Lloyd has left
  171. tato has joined
  172. tato has left
  173. Kev has left
  174. jabberjocke has left
  175. jabberjocke has joined
  176. stpeter has left
  177. jabberjocke has left
  178. tato has joined
  179. tato has left
  180. tato has joined
  181. tato has left
  182. Alex has left