ralphmSimon: 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
KevGetting to this thing tonight is not proving easy!
stpeterthis thing = ?
KevLondon XMPP meeting.
Alexhas joined
Kevhas left
Kevhas left
KevIs anyone in here going?
KevAt 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.
bearI don't think so
KevTa.
bearall of the people I know who are going are already there for the IoT part
SimonKev - Lloyd is there
Jefhas joined
Simonlloydwatkin@googlemail.com
stpeterchat with him while you still can :P
Simonheh
bearpower failure! oh no!
KevAnd I'm still in the office. I'm really not making this :/
KevSimon: Is that Lloyd's email addr. as well?
stpeterKev: sorry to hear it :(
Simonlloyd.watkin@surevine.com
KevMurky.
ralphmKev: who's the slave driver keeping you there?
KevCircumstance.
ralphmOdd name
stpeter:)
stpetertries to figure out his priorities for the remainder of the year
ralphm1) avoid certain IETF mailing lists
Kev2) avoid uncertain IETF mailing lists?
ralphm3) done
SimonPeter - 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."
SimonMakes it sound like it would be ideal for google to stop federating :)
KevIt reads as if stopping federation is best, and if they can't do that then they could at least TLS.
KevYes.
stpeterat this point, the lack of features and security in Google Talk is holding back progress, no?
stpeterI agree that I might not have expressed myself very well
SimonIf progress = more features then yes. If progress = user_count, then no.
ralphmSimon: weren't you the guy who wrote 'we tried to ignore as much of XMPP as possible'?
ralphm:-D
Simonyes - because I think a lot of it is features that are irrelevent to 99% of end users.
stpeterprogress = better security
stpeter(in this context)
SimonAgree 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)
ralphmSimon: 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.
ralphmAs for Google, I don't give us a lot of odds getting this sorted out with them.
Simonralph: I'm talking about how we used it for our use case.
ralphmSimon: *I* understand the context. For other people you are 'one of those XSF Board members'.
Simoneg - we ignore vcards, we ignore PEP, we ignore as much as possible
ralphmworthsmithing is not fun, but yeah
Simonnot in that email to Mozilla - I was very clear about how we used it for buddycloud. Buddycloud is not the XSF.
ralphmSimon: again, I see that difference.
tatohas joined
ralphmNot saying people at Mozilla are stupid, but, you know, people are busy and have different contexts.
SimonDid anyone hear back from any Google folk today? Peter - were you able to ping any of your contacts?
stpeterI shall do that now
ralphmSimilarly, 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.
SimonRalph - 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.
ralphmAgreed
SimonWe should be clear about that - since we're discussing it here, at the Summit and at Board meetings then.
ralphmAs I said, we need to be careful in how we word things.
ralphmI also wonder why people don't think of the IETF as 7000 of specifications you must implement to do anything on internet.
stpeteras someone said recently on Twitter, XMPP is the C++ of messaging protocols :P
SimonI 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.
ralphmNobody has said such a thing.
ralphmThe XSF might, still.
bearthen we should be talking about that now
ralphmI do know that one of the initial responses I got was that (large?) companies generally don't really like manifestos.
beartest day can be seperate from the manifesto
ralphmsure it can
stpeterlarge companies might not generally like security, either ;-)
SimonManifesto 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).
ralphmWell, I think that if you recently publicly stated that you are going to start encrypting all your inter-DC traffic, you kinda care.
stpeterralphm: you might care about protecting your stuff but not your customer's stuff
Simonralphm - I hope so.
ralphmIf we arrive at 19 May, and this list *isn't* looking good then, yeah, we kinda failed.
stpeterbut I can't speculate about motivations, because I simply don't know
SimonI'll ping Ade now and see if he heard anything.
stpeterralphm: if much more of our traffic is encrypted, then we've succeeded
ralphmstpeter: good point
Lloydhas joined
SimonTo me the most frustrating part is not even getting an ACK back from anyone at Google's XMPP team.
ralphmSimon: welcome to our world
SimonJonas has generally been really helpful when I've pinged him about other issues.
dwdSimon, Arguably, Google no longer has an XMPP team. I suspect the federation is running largely because it's not yet caused any further problems.
stpeterdwd: the thought has crossed my mind
SimonDo they need to call in the A-Team?
dwdstpeter, 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.
stpeterdwd: well, you've seen the discussions about https for ietf.org, I take it :-)
stpeterdwd: I gave a warning about this in my remarks at the plenary
dwdOh, I didn't see that.
ralphmdo you think it is a big issue?
stpeterdwd: 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;-)
Kevdwd: 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
fippofrankly, as long as jabber.org deploys tls-only that's enough for me
fippothis will cause waves and break things
fippothings that ought to be fixed.
tatohas joined
fippodwd: i'm showing googles webrtc team that ignoring jingle and xmpp is a very bad thing currently (-:
XSF Discussion - 2013-12-02