Simon: could you send me a copy of the e-mail you sent to Adewale. I was enjoying my weekend.
Laurahas joined
Laurahas left
Lloydhas joined
Jefhas joined
Kevhas left
Jefhas left
SouLhas left
Kevhas joined
SouLhas joined
SouLhas left
SouLhas joined
Zashhas left
Alexhas left
Kevhas left
stpeterhas joined
Zashhas joined
Lloydhas left
Lloydhas joined
bearhas joined
Lancehas joined
Lloydhas left
Kevhas joined
Kev
Getting to this thing tonight is not proving easy!
stpeter
this thing = ?
Kev
London XMPP meeting.
Alexhas joined
Kevhas left
Kevhas left
Kev
Is anyone in here going?
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.
bear
I don't think so
Kev
Ta.
bear
all of the people I know who are going are already there for the IoT part
Simon
Kev - Lloyd is there
Jefhas joined
Simon
lloydwatkin@googlemail.com
stpeter
chat with him while you still can :P
Simon
heh
bear
power failure! oh no!
Kev
And I'm still in the office. I'm really not making this :/
Kev
Simon: Is that Lloyd's email addr. as well?
stpeter
Kev: sorry to hear it :(
Simon
lloyd.watkin@surevine.com
Kev
Murky.
ralphm
Kev: who's the slave driver keeping you there?
Kev
Circumstance.
ralphm
Odd name
stpeter
:)
stpetertries to figure out his priorities for the remainder of the year
ralphm
1) avoid certain IETF mailing lists
Kev
2) avoid uncertain IETF mailing lists?
ralphm
3) done
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."
Simon
Makes it sound like it would be ideal for google to stop federating :)
Kev
It reads as if stopping federation is best, and if they can't do that then they could at least TLS.
Kev
Yes.
stpeter
at this point, the lack of features and security in Google Talk is holding back progress, no?
stpeter
I agree that I might not have expressed myself very well
Simon
If progress = more features then yes. If progress = user_count, then no.
ralphm
Simon: weren't you the guy who wrote 'we tried to ignore as much of XMPP as possible'?
ralphm
:-D
Simon
yes - because I think a lot of it is features that are irrelevent to 99% of end users.
stpeter
progress = better security
stpeter
(in this context)
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)
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.
ralphm
As for Google, I don't give us a lot of odds getting this sorted out with them.
Simon
ralph: I'm talking about how we used it for our use case.
ralphm
Simon: *I* understand the context. For other people you are 'one of those XSF Board members'.
Simon
eg - we ignore vcards, we ignore PEP, we ignore as much as possible
ralphm
worthsmithing is not fun, but yeah
Simon
not in that email to Mozilla - I was very clear about how we used it for buddycloud. Buddycloud is not the XSF.
ralphm
Simon: again, I see that difference.
tatohas joined
ralphm
Not saying people at Mozilla are stupid, but, you know, people are busy and have different contexts.
Simon
Did anyone hear back from any Google folk today? Peter - were you able to ping any of your contacts?
stpeter
I shall do that now
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.
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.
ralphm
Agreed
Simon
We should be clear about that - since we're discussing it here, at the Summit and at Board meetings then.
ralphm
As I said, we need to be careful in how we word things.
ralphm
I also wonder why people don't think of the IETF as 7000 of specifications you must implement to do anything on internet.
stpeter
as someone said recently on Twitter, XMPP is the C++ of messaging protocols :P
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.
ralphm
Nobody has said such a thing.
ralphm
The XSF might, still.
bear
then we should be talking about that now
ralphm
I do know that one of the initial responses I got was that (large?) companies generally don't really like manifestos.
bear
test day can be seperate from the manifesto
ralphm
sure it can
stpeter
large companies might not generally like security, either ;-)
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).
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.
stpeter
ralphm: you might care about protecting your stuff but not your customer's stuff
Simon
ralphm - I hope so.
ralphm
If we arrive at 19 May, and this list *isn't* looking good then, yeah, we kinda failed.
stpeter
but I can't speculate about motivations, because I simply don't know
Simon
I'll ping Ade now and see if he heard anything.
stpeter
ralphm: if much more of our traffic is encrypted, then we've succeeded
ralphm
stpeter: good point
Lloydhas joined
Simon
To me the most frustrating part is not even getting an ACK back from anyone at Google's XMPP team.
ralphm
Simon: welcome to our world
Simon
Jonas has generally been really helpful when I've pinged him about other issues.
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.
stpeter
dwd: the thought has crossed my mind
Simon
Do they need to call in the A-Team?
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.
stpeter
dwd: well, you've seen the discussions about https for ietf.org, I take it :-)
stpeter
dwd: I gave a warning about this in my remarks at the plenary
dwd
Oh, I didn't see that.
ralphm
do you think it is a big issue?
stpeter
dwd: I was the last person to go to the mic at the technical plenary in Vancouver
Kev
"as someone said recently on Twitter, XMPP is the C++ of messaging protocols :P"
Wow, that's really high praise
stpeter
;-)
Kev
dwd: You mean there was someone who /wasn't/ watching that plenary?
Kevhas left
jabberjockehas joined
Kevhas joined
Kevhas left
Kevhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
bearhas left
Lloydhas left
tatohas left
fippo
frankly, as long as jabber.org deploys tls-only that's enough for me
fippo
this will cause waves and break things
fippo
things that ought to be fixed.
tatohas joined
fippo
dwd: i'm showing googles webrtc team that ignoring jingle and xmpp is a very bad thing currently (-: