XSF Discussion - 2013-12-04


  1. fippo

    http://webrtchacks.com/trickle-ice/

  2. fippo

    "Things get complicated for SIP because it has neither of the above: it has neither the reliable discovery mechanisms of XMPP, nor the mandatory support for trickling that WebRTC comes with."

  3. fippo

    poor old sip

  4. MattJ

    :'(

  5. stpeter

    heh

  6. stpeter

    speaking of which, would it be helpful to finish off the Server IP Check XEP?

  7. Zash

    Oh, hadn't seen that there was a new version of that

  8. stpeter

    newish, anyway

  9. stpeter

    all it really does is give you a hint that your IP address might not be what you think it is, thus the acronym "sic" ;-)

  10. MattJ

    Clever :)

  11. stpeter

    I love clever acronyms -- maybe I should've gone into marketing or advertising ;-)

  12. bear

    Board meeting in 5 minutes, I suspect it may be a fast one

  13. stpeter

    why do you suspect so? ;-)

  14. bear

    i'm just being an optimist

  15. dwd

    We can soon correct that one, though.

  16. stpeter

    http://webrtchacks.com/trickle-ice/ mentions Jingle Relay Nodes -- another spec we need to update

  17. dwd grabs thinking-pencil

  18. dwd

    What with SRTP-DTLS and stuff, a relay is unable to snoop on the conversation, I suppose?

  19. bear

    you can buy those!?!

  20. dwd

    bear, Don't know, but you should be able to. Then again, I also want a hex bit pencil and pen set, and I can't find those anywhere.

  21. bear checks for quorum

  22. bear

    ralphm, simon, dwd, laura?

  23. dwd waves appendages.

  24. Simon is here

  25. ralphm

    hi

  26. Laura

    Here

  27. bear

    sweet! everyone ready to start?

  28. ralphm

    go

  29. stpeter

    wow, cool, text from Laura appeared before she joined the chatrom

  30. stpeter

    +o

  31. dwd

    stpeter, Then your client had a MUC sync failure.

  32. bear

    yea, I just noticed she was not in the admin affiliates list

  33. bear

    so made the change just as she was responding

  34. dwd

    stpeter, You saw the role change as a entry.

  35. stpeter

    anyway

  36. stpeter

    topics for today?

  37. Simon

    Bear: I'd like to add a discussion about the XSF involvement with the securing of XMPP to the agenda.

  38. bear

    on the agenda:

  39. dwd

    Simon, Good call.

  40. bear

    GSoC update

  41. bear

    FOSDEM quick update

  42. bear

    Google outreach response/update

  43. dwd needs to largely vanish at 1700UTC (ie, 30 mins) to go cook the children's food.

  44. bear

    and XSF being active with the XMPP ubiquitous security thingy

  45. bear

    ok, first item - GSoC

  46. bear

    let's make this a Kev inspired meeting then - 30 minutes and done

  47. bear

    i'll do minutes later tonight

  48. bear

    the mailing list had quite a response

  49. Simon

    +1 for a fast meeting.

  50. bear

    so I want to make sure tonight the gsoc wiki page has items

  51. bear

    and then poke the responders to start updating it

  52. ralphm

    yeah, looks good

  53. bear

    i'll do that tonight

  54. Simon

    then we should mail out to the list(s) too?

  55. dwd

    It'd be nice to get some concrete support and suggestions.

  56. Simon

    +1

  57. Simon

    ok -happy to start adding concrete when the page is ready.

  58. bear

    yes, if you all want, email me what lists I should target and I'll do them (or volunteer to help cover them)

  59. bear

    yea, that is better, update the wiki wth the lists and then we can coordinate

  60. bear

    anything else on GSoC ?

  61. stpeter

    (as to agenda items, I'd like to chat briefly about the various liaison relationships that might be forming)

  62. bear adds to agenda

  63. Simon

    Bear: happy with that for GSOC / nothing else

  64. ralphm

    isn't that like g outreach?

  65. bear

    ok, next item - google outreach results

  66. bear

    my take is that we are hitting a possible political stonewall ?

  67. dwd

    Well, no.

  68. Simon

    Update: Email doesn't reach google people/ G+ does. Ade pinged a couple of people inside google and "they are aware of what is happening" was the most I could get out.

  69. dwd

    The wheels of Google grind slowly, etc.

  70. Simon

    I'd tried to email quite a few people including their head of open souce Chris DiBona. Nothing back.

  71. dwd

    It's not so much a political stonewall, it's just the momentum of the juggernaut is hard to change.

  72. fippo

    i'd note https://twitter.com/juberti/status/401971677321367552 as well

  73. stpeter

    I did reach out to Justin Uberti and he said he would find out if it's possible / feasible for them to support s2s encryption

  74. Simon

    What about we take a different approach - of asking that they enable TLS without cert checking. But at this point I'm somewhat inclinded to say fuckit.

  75. bear

    ok, so my question would be this then: do we continue with another round of polite-behind-the-scenes contacts or do we start getting noisier on the G+ scene?

  76. dwd

    Simon, I don't think we've got anywhere close to that yet.

  77. stpeter

    Simon: that is what I suggested to Justin as a good place to start

  78. dwd

    bear, I'm nervous about becoming confrontational in public.

  79. fippo

    stpeter: they have it implemented. It worked a couple of years ago

  80. stpeter

    but, to Dave's point, we don't even know if they have anyone working on Talk any longer

  81. stpeter

    fippo: ah, I had forgotten about that

  82. dwd

    bear, I think the counter-reaction would be bad, basically.

  83. stpeter

    I see no reason for a confrontation

  84. dwd

    What might be interesting is to try to get Google participation from the Chris DiBona/Ade types at the SUmmit.

  85. bear

    I wasn't suggesting bashing

  86. stpeter

    ideally we can bring along Google, although IMHO it might not happen as quickly as we'd like

  87. bear

    I was suggesting just taking some of the questions to G+ and starting a dialog

  88. dwd

    I know it'll be too late for the 4th Jan test day, but getting to chat face to face might prove much more effective.

  89. stpeter

    and BTW it's not just Google -- other providers like GMX and Dreamhost are relevant here, too

  90. fippo

    stpeter: i'll poke some people about GMX again.

  91. dwd

    bear, I think it'd end up a disaster, TBH. We just cannot control how other people pitch into a public conversation.

  92. Simon

    I can go an know on GMX's door here in Munich.

  93. stpeter

    Simon: :-)

  94. Simon is serious.

  95. ralphm

    dwd: agreed

  96. bear

    ok, so the push back i'm hearing is that we keep it direct until the first test day is over?

  97. bear

    and then regroup?

  98. stpeter

    that seems reasonable

  99. dwd

    Right, but I'd reiterate that if we can ply some Googlers with beer in Brussels I think it'd lubricate more than throats.

  100. stpeter

    :)

  101. fippo

    dwd: and london :-)

  102. ralphm

    the point is that we are effectively not having a conversation, not even no-comment

  103. Simon

    Sounds good. A nice report from the first test day explaining how we've tried to reach out to some of the larger providers wouldn't go amiss too.

  104. dwd

    ralphm, Well, we've had a to, and a fro. It's not great, but it's a start.

  105. ralphm

    those googlers we are talking to are not involved

  106. stpeter

    ralphm: methinks I'll post on +

  107. stpeter

    dwd: agreed

  108. Simon

    My post on G+ got an instant reaction.

  109. stpeter

    Simon: yes

  110. ralphm

    dwd: I chat with Ade all the time, that's easy

  111. bear

    ok, so the status is "still poking" with more pokes to happen and to keep it on a one-to-one level for now and let the sleeping giant that is our awesome membership quiet for the moment?

  112. Simon

    posting and linking to http://xmpp.net/result.php?domain=gmail.com&type=server (when it's finished testing).

  113. stpeter

    heh

  114. fippo

    simon: use google.com instead

  115. dwd

    Hmmm. xmpp.net isn't over https. No irony there.

  116. stpeter

    it doesn't force https

  117. ralphm

    heh

  118. stpeter

    we can fix that

  119. ralphm

    let's

  120. dwd

    But I digress...

  121. bear

    ok, moving on

  122. stpeter

    ok, done with that topic?

  123. stpeter

    (I will try to resurrect some DreamHost contacts)

  124. bear

    ralphm - can you give a quick FOSDEM update?

  125. ralphm

    no change

  126. Simon

    I'd like us to talk about the security effort though as part of the XSF. This security stuff is important to get right. At the moment we spoke about it at the summit, in the board meetings and in the mailing lists. If it's purely Peter's manifesto and the XSF isn't endorsing that, then we look indecicive. And this stuff is important and we should be endorsing it.

  127. bear

    nicely quick - thanks ralph

  128. bear passes the mic to simon

  129. Kev

    Simon: FWIW, I don't think the manifesto as it stands is 'right'.

  130. Simon

    I can't think of a more important cause that we should be focusing on and championing.

  131. bear

    kev - what part of the manifesto do you not agree with?

  132. dwd

    Simon, I'd be concerned that too many of the operators are not committed to it - in part because of the Google (and GMX, and ... ) issues.

  133. bear

    the non-technical bits?

  134. Simon

    Or put another way, is there anything more important than focusing on security right now?

  135. Kev

    I've sent an Isode position to Peter a few weeks back to give him a chance to comment before making such a thing publicly.

  136. dwd

    Simon, Think of the children.

  137. stpeter

    personally I'm not really a fan of manifesto as communication method, but it's been good as a way to start the conversation and set some goals

  138. Kev

    But my personal position, which may or may not be similar to Isode's, is that it states the requirements too firmly without nuance.

  139. bear

    i.e., can we endorse the testing and interoperability of the Security Test Day without waving the manifesto as our flag?

  140. dwd

    bear, Not really. Or at least, we can, but nobody will understand that.

  141. Kev

    There are significant (non-Internet) deployments that do not need, or should not have, TLS, and the manifesto simply says they need to use TLS. If the XSF endorses that, it's saying it doesn't recognise any of these deployments as valid, and that was Not Be Good.

  142. stpeter

    Kev: likely something is lost in my inbox and I need to reply, sorry about that

  143. Simon

    a) write a manifesto b) decide that security is an important selling point for XMPP c) XSF announces secure connections on the network test days. d) XMPP is secure.

  144. Laura

    What about seeing the manifesto as a work-in-progress?

  145. ralphm

    Maybe we can change the effort to an informational XEP and then have XSF announce test days

  146. Laura

    Look for engagement through involevemt?

  147. stpeter

    Laura: I definitely see it that way, but it perhaps hasn't been presented properly

  148. Kev

    stpeter: I think you replied saying "Will look at this", and then lost it, then :)

  149. dwd

    I personally see the manifesto as a kind of bargaining position. It's a statement of our ideal for internet services.

  150. dwd

    The trouble is, the way it's worded leaves little compromise.

  151. Laura

    Does it say that clearly? "This is a statement of our ideal…" etc?

  152. Kev

    dwd: But because it places requirements on software, not just deployment, that is not clear.

  153. stpeter

    Kev: as to non-Internet deployments, the manifesto doesn't talk about those since it's about the public XMPP network

  154. bear

    I can get behind the XSF creating a best-practices XEP and then starts to support interop testing to implement it

  155. Simon

    Kev: The manifesto calls for securing public servers that interconnect - don't think it mentions "behind the firewall" installs.

  156. Kev

    stpeter: No, it's about software too.

  157. dwd

    And I think that lack of compromise is seen as worrying by a considerable portion of the deployed servers out there.

  158. stpeter

    Kev: yes, we need the software to support the features and configuration options that make it possible for public XMPP services to encrypt traffic

  159. Kev

    stpeter: Yes, but some of the software points are not 'support', they're 'do'.

  160. Simon

    I see it more as "if you want to talk to my users, you jolly well ought to take their privacy seriously and use TLS"

  161. dwd

    Simon, Right, but that's not what it says.

  162. Kev

    I am not opposed to the ideas in the manifesto, but the wording is Not Quite Right to my eye.

  163. Kev

    stpeter: You have some comments on this in your inbox :)

  164. Laura

    Please tell me it actually uses the phrase "you jolly well ought to"

  165. Simon

    :)

  166. stpeter

    Kev: I'm sure

  167. stpeter

    anyway

  168. dwd

    Laura, No, it says "you must and I will not compromise".

  169. dwd

    THough I paraphrase.

  170. Laura

    Scary

  171. Laura

    What about "we will help you to…"?

  172. stpeter

    Kev: the only "do" I see is "no more SSLv2 and SSLv3", but I think the "and SSLv3" can be removed -- it's SSLv2 that is bad

  173. Laura

    More encouraging?

  174. stpeter

    in any case, this is not the place to wordsmith

  175. stpeter

    and 27 minutes have gone by in this meeting :-)

  176. Kev

    stpeter: Are you happy for me to share the mail more widely, or would you like to read it first?

  177. stpeter

    action item for me is to review all feedback and propose changes to the manifesto

  178. Kev

    OK.

  179. Simon

    My original point is that the XSF needs to be seizing this moment to fix security on s2s links (I don't care what you do on your c2s links)

  180. stpeter

    Kev: I'm fine with public discussion -- transparency is always better IMHO

  181. dwd

    stpeter, Right. But I think the point is that it's not clear that the XSF can wholeheartedly support it in its current form, which is unfortunate, because the goals of it seem very well aligned.

  182. bear

    can we get some wordsmithing on this in the lists and take this up again next week?

  183. stpeter

    dwd: I'm not sure what it means for the XSF to support such a thing -- does that mean the membership needs to vote, or can the Board voice its support?

  184. stpeter

    bear: sure

  185. dwd

    Simon, "Do this or go home" has the unfortunate problem that many people seem happy enough to take the latter option, judging by the lists.

  186. stpeter

    the idea is very much to give us some aspirational goals, *not* to split the network!!

  187. dwd

    stpeter, I would argue that the Board shoudl probably judge consensus, rather than ask for a formal vote in most cases.

  188. Simon

    dwd: I was thinking about that. And yes, there are some vocal opponents. But I think we risk loosing the voice of the vast majority of silent suporters that would like secure connections.

  189. stpeter

    but the text in the manifesto about unauthenticated encryption seems to make this uncontroversial

  190. dwd

    stpeter, " the idea is very much to give us some aspirational goals" - right, totally behind you on this. I think it's the absolutism, as it were, that's causing the discomfort.

  191. bear looks at the time

  192. bear

    ok, if we can get the wordsmithing fixed

  193. stpeter

    dwd: OK, I will revisit the text and see if I can propose some scrubbing to remove any remaining traces of absolutism

  194. Simon

    I think the manifest is right - this is a network and at some point one has to force the issue - it's been many years now and the state of XMPP security has rumbled on in an insecure hodgepodge.

  195. bear

    then we will have a chance next week to talk about what/how we as the board can get the membership to support the effort?

  196. stpeter

    Simon: yes, *but* IMHO we should be able to at least get to unauthenticated encryption using even anonymous DH

  197. stpeter

    bear: yes

  198. dwd

    stpeter, +1.

  199. stpeter shuts up about security

  200. ralphm

    heh

  201. bear

    that sounds like a best-practices XEP for sure

  202. bear

    so people can be pointed to it as a HOW-TO once they get their F from xmpp.net

  203. fippo

    bear: i pestered dwd about starttls+dialback already

  204. dwd

    If we're done with this, does that mean we're done-done?

  205. Simon

    (peter: what's happening on Jabber.org's upgrade?)

  206. bear

    ok, that was the last agenda item

  207. Simon moves soapbox to the side.

  208. stpeter

    quick update about the liaison agreements

  209. bear

    any agenda bashing?

  210. bear moves box to peter's side

  211. stpeter

    I have received communication from the UPnP Forum about a liaison agreement with them

  212. stpeter

    I'm working on this with someone from Cisco who is involved in UPnP Forum

  213. stpeter

    we'll do a bit of back and forth in the next day or two

  214. stpeter

    then I think I can send a proposed document to the Board

  215. stpeter

    they have a template for such things, we just need to fill in some of the details

  216. stpeter

    I haven't really reviewed it yet, just received it yesterday

  217. stpeter

    but it's in the works

  218. stpeter

    and you saw my note about their UPnP Cloud initiative

  219. stpeter

    so that's all good, I think

  220. stpeter

    I need to follow up with both ISO TC 122 and IEC TC 57

  221. stpeter

    I apologize for taking last week off ;-)

  222. ralphm

    any more text on that?

  223. stpeter

    that = ISO and IEC?

  224. ralphm

    upnp+xmpp

  225. bear smacks peter with the "you should take more time off" bat

  226. ralphm

    apart from the news page

  227. stpeter

    oh, BTW, UPnP Forum is very interested in conformance / compliance testing and might be able to contribute code in this area for XMPP stuff

  228. dwd

    stpeter, Do we have to approve your vacation time as your management?

  229. stpeter

    ralphm: I have two presentations (PPT format) that I can probably share -- the rest has all been verbal chats I've had with some folks at UPnP Forum

  230. ralphm

    right

  231. stpeter

    they've had quite a few technical questions about MUC, pubsub, security, naming, etc.

  232. stpeter

    even Jingle stuff

  233. stpeter

    I think they basically want to accomplish the vision that Dirk Meyer was working on a few years ago

  234. ralphm

    cool

  235. stpeter

    yep

  236. dwd

    My children are hungry; but I think we just ask the Council to select some folk in readiness on the assumption Peter will sort out the legal mumbo jumbo.

  237. stpeter

    yes

  238. bear

    cool, sounds like a +1 to peter's plan

  239. stpeter

    we can discuss more next week

  240. stpeter

    I just wanted to provide a quick update

  241. bear

    next week, same time and place?

  242. dwd

    Someone (COuncil or us) should put out a call for volunteers to serve on these things.

  243. dwd

    (to members@)

  244. stpeter

    seems like a Council thing

  245. dwd

    bear, Yes.

  246. stpeter

    let's put that on their agenda for next week's Council meeting :-)

  247. dwd

    stpeter, Happy for it to be Council, they're doing the selection.

  248. stpeter

    WFM

  249. bear

    k, i'll send an email to membership@ asking council to add it to agenda

  250. bear

    ok, we are done then - thanks all!

  251. dwd

    Doesn't that effectively act as a call for volunteers?

  252. bear

    nope, just a public way of getting it on the council agenda

  253. stpeter

    :)

  254. Kev

    Yes, just make sure that anything going on Council agends reaches me via email please (either directly, to council@ or to members@ with a clear subject line) so I notice it.

  255. bear

    +1

  256. stpeter

    yay

  257. bear

    k, i'll write up the minutes after work using the new Kev method

  258. stpeter

    super

  259. stpeter

    thanks, all!

  260. stpeter

    good discussion

  261. bear

    and the i'll do the calendar additions for next week

  262. Simon

    thanks all

  263. bear

    yep, thanks everyone

  264. Laura

    Bye all

  265. stpeter

    it's great to see such passion about XMPP after all these years :-)

  266. bear

    +1

  267. Kev

    So, post meeting...Board could use more bios :)

  268. Kev

    I'm happy to put them in place if people send them to me, or everyone probably has access to do it themselves.

  269. Laura

    Tried to log in to do mine but couldn\t get in. I have my password - is the user name email address?

  270. Laura

    It didn't like me

  271. Kev

    I don't believe so - who created your account?

  272. Kev

    Bug them about it :)

  273. bear looks at laura's account

  274. bear

    laura: your username is "laura" and the email is listed as "laura.gill@surevine.com"

  275. Laura

    Thank you bear

  276. stpeter updates the Board calendar

  277. Laura

    *makes note to do my homework*

  278. stpeter

    Laura: hopefully these meetings aren't too crazy for you -- we have a certain style of communicating and it can be difficult to follow, I think :-)

  279. bear

    it does take some getting used to

  280. Kev

    At least we don't communicate by yelling (much) :)

  281. stpeter

    hmph, I have a dentist appointment next Wednesday morning, I am not sure how I schedule such a thing at that time :(

  282. bear

    do you want a schedule change before/after?

  283. stpeter

    I can provide information by email beforehand and the Board can proceed, I think

  284. bear

    k

  285. stpeter

    maybe I can join via mobile or show up early and use their wifi

  286. bear

    I'm up for sliding the meeting up an hour if the others are ok with it

  287. stpeter

    I'm going to see if (a) the dentist has wifi or (b) I can move the appointment

  288. Kev

    Hahahaha

  289. stpeter

    if we have a 30-minute meeting, we should be fine :-)

  290. Kev

    Sentences you never expect to see "I'm going to see if the dentist has wifi".

  291. stpeter

    heh yeah

  292. stpeter

    I'll work it out on my end

  293. stpeter

    Board calendar updated

  294. bear has sent email to members@ asking for council time

  295. Kev

    Thanks bear.

  296. bear

    yw

  297. bear

    the gsoc wiki page has been created by jabberjocke - \o/

  298. bear proofreads the new page for typos and spelling

  299. bear sends blurb to members@ about GSOC project ideas

  300. fippo

    kev: the agenda for the next meeting is going to be pretty heavy

  301. fippo

    three submissions from me ;-)

  302. Kev

    Yay.

  303. MattJ

    dwd, can you expand "with strong identity being considerably more prevalent that it was"? (assuming s/that/than/)

  304. dwd

    We have a big push for proper certificates that seems to be working.

  305. dwd

    But you know, I thought I'd make it sound exciting and technical.

  306. MattJ

    So now we need to get the discussion over to the security list somehow

  307. MattJ

    and then jingle, and the WG list

  308. stpeter

    :P