Am I the only one to be baffled by the Yes-Yes-Yes-No-Yes order of questions in the Last Call emails, every single time?
archas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
Valerianhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
ralphmhas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
Tobiashas joined
Guushas left
nicolas.veritehas left
Guushas joined
Tobias
yes you are
Ge0rG
Tobias: how can you know? :D
efrithas joined
nycohas joined
Tobias
aww...multi-client support in major IM apps, "WhatsApp is open on another computer or browser. Click “Use Here” to use WhatsApp in this window."
nicolas.veritehas joined
Ge0rG
Tobias: And you have also stored XSS vulnerabilities in WhatsAppWeb✎
Ge0rG
Tobias: And you have also stored-XSS vulnerabilities in WhatsAppWeb ✏
Tobias
what web app doesn'T have XSS vulnerabilities, that's their feature, isn't it?
vurpohas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
Ge0rG
Last time I audited a web app, I was able to type HTML/JavaScript right into the "Send message to admin" input box. Instant root!
vurpohas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Guushas left
Guushas joined
intosihas joined
efrithas joined
efrithas joined
rionhas joined
rionhas left
ralphmhas left
suzyohas joined
nycohas joined
Tobias
jonasw, am I missing something or does xmpp.org already show the data based on your JSON system?
jonasw
no, I think it does
Valerianhas left
jonasw
https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/278 cc @ Ge0rG (who wants to write the announcement mail for software developers)
A bit of manual cannot hurt for the renewal thing.
Tobias
jonasw, nice..and expiration also works as soon as last_renewed is set
jonasw
there is also that deadline hardcoded in pelicanconf.py, we should adapt this once the mail is sent out
jonasw
after that deadline anything without renewal disappears magically
so yeah...an annoucement mail would be nice to tell people to create PRs that set the last_renewed value for their project to a value in the past and that after a months or so, all entries without a last_renewed set will be removed
jonasw
we can set this to date_of_mail + 1 month when the mail is sent out.
jonasw
no need to modify the last renewal of projects for us.
jonasw
ah, nevermind, I misunderstood you. disregard the last one, it was unrelated.
nicolas.veritehas left
jonasw
(true, but unrelated)
archas joined
Tobias
jonasw, could the config also be relative? like today - 13 months or so
jonasw
not sure what you mean
Ge0rG
https://op-co.de/tmp/deprecation-mail.txt draft email with PR link
jonasw
there are two reasons to kick an entry from the list in the code (aside from date parsing issues):
1. if they have no renewal timestamp set, they are kicked after the date in STRICT_RENEWAL_DEADLINE has passed
2. if they *have* a renewal timestamp set, they are kicked if it is more than ENTRY_LIFETIME in the past (currently set to 365 days)
Tobias
jonasw, ahh..so it does more than I thought :) good
Ge0rG
jonasw: ENTRY_LIFETIME should be ~13 months to provide for a grace period
jonasw
it does everything that was asked I think :-)
jonasw
Ge0rG: fine with me. make a PR ;-)
Tobias
right...I thought we'd just delete projects with no date set after the deadline, but your STRICT_RENEWAL_DEADLINE config already does this :)
Tobiashas joined
Tobias
does this = has the same effect
Ge0rG
jonasw: -ETOOMANYPENDINGPRS
jonasw
Ge0rG: your email footnotes have two times [2] in them
Ge0rG
jonasw: damn off-by-ones. Fixed.
jonasw
Ge0rG: it might be better to link to the commit rather than to the PR
jonasw
the PR does a lot of unrelated stuff
jonasw
it might be even better to link to the README
jonasw
(and we can update the readme with a link to the example commit once the branch is merged)
Ge0rG
jonasw: but I did link to the commit. It was just relative to the PR and not in the xsf repo.
jonasw
argh
jonasw
I cannot read urls
jonasw
sorry
Tobias
jonasw, right...maybe we should add a section to https://xmpp.org/software/ how authors can add new software and update the date
Ge0rG
jonasw: URLTLDR
jonasw
Tobias: might be wise, yes
Ge0rG
Tobias: maybe we should add it to some README and link it from https://xmpp.org/software/
Tobias
why not have the readme at https://xmpp.org/software/ ?
jonasw
https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/278/commits/73cd247e4af6624e60ac29bf33c3f4bf46677786#diff-ac579daf3602a0a4ea57b5fdd7f73dd8 like this readme?
jonasw
Tobias: because it’s long and technical. If we want normal users to use the software directory there, we shouldn’t have that information on it
Tobias
yeah..that what you linked to looks qutie long..linking to it sounds sensible
jonasw
I thought I’d rather make it too detailed than too shallow.
Ge0rG
Yay. I've been reading 0369 for the last two hours, and I only managed to get to 6.1.6
jonasw
Ge0rG: you are in luck! it appears that prefer hidden is going to be broken out of that XEP. so less to read next time ;-)
jonasw
(which I think is a good idea, I also thought that might make sense to break out into an add-on)
Ge0rG
jonasw: yeah, I actually had three remarked about prefer-hidden that I already deleted.
jonasw
:)
Tobias
Ge0rG, you should order the audiobook version read by helen mirren
jonasw
thanks for going through it :)
jonasw
there is one? :-O Tobias
Tobias
there should be one
Ge0rG
Tobias: but I want the one read by Morgan Freeman('s German lipsync voice).
Tobias
https://youtu.be/zmeF2rzsZSU?t=2m19s :)
Tobias
Ge0rG, you mean Nelson Mandela?
Guushas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Guushas joined
Valerianhas joined
Tobias
jonasw, but yeah..nice work you did there...thanks :)
jonasw
no problem :-)
jonasw
you’re welcome
jonasw
(I need to get used to using "you’re welcome" in en locales)
Tobias
de nada
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
nycohas joined
Zashhas joined
pep.has joined
Yagizahas joined
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rG
resolved my XMPP action items for today.
Ge0rG
When is the next council meeting due?
Tobias
Ge0rG, they usually happen on a weekly basis
goffihas joined
Ge0rG
So "yesterday"
nycohas joined
Tobias
Ge0rG, which reminds me to write up minutes for yesterdays meeting...nothing is more exciting than yesterday news
Ge0rG
Tobias: was there an exciting discussion of #436?
Bunneh
Tobias: XEP-0045: Add <x/> tag to MUC-PMs #436
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
Tobias
i don't remember discussions about that
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rG
It looks like my train is arriving. I'm looking forward to read minutes.
Tobias
http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-03-15/
Tobias
shoo shooo
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
jonasw
huh
jonasw
is there any update on my protoxep?
jonasw
(I’m not familiar with the process, so please don’t mind me asking.)
jonasw
ah
jonasw
I am too stupid to search
Tobias
jonasw, it's awaiting votes...council members have two weeks to vote
sonnyhas joined
jonasw
ah, I see
jonasw
didn’t know that "two weeks" detail
Holger
Ge0rG: It was mentioned last week http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-03-08/#16:32:52 (and then on the list) but maybe you mean a follow-up discussion?
Ge0rG
Holger: yes. I've done what was asked from me and hoped it would get discussed again
Holger
Ah ok.
Ge0rG
Looks like adding things to the PR wasn't enough. Need to bother someone to add it to trello.
sonnyhas joined
Tobias
Ge0rG, yup..what's not in trello isn't discussed :)
jonasw
mail to council@?
Ge0rG
Tobias: can you add it please?
Tobias
sure
Tobias
Ge0rG, seems there are pending votes on https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg
Tobias
one of which is mine...will review that now then :)
Ge0rG
Tobias: it might need a revote (is that a thing), because I changed the PR based on council feedback
sonnyhas joined
Tobias
Ge0rG, i'll put it on the agenda to discuss this next meeting
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Ge0rG
Tobias: thanks very much! Is there anything I can do to accelerate the process, so that there is no more 1-week latency in the feedback loop?
Ge0rG
Or even 2-week in this case
Steve Killehas joined
Tobias
Ge0rG, get dwd to vote on it
jonasw
Ge0rG: have you sent the deprecation announce already?
Ge0rG
jonasw: to board? Yes.
jonasw
with the link to the commit?
Ge0rG
jonasw: yes
jonasw
hm, then I’ll make sure that the commit ID doesn’t change :)
Tobias
seems i already voted on Ge0rG's PR, just forgot to mark it in Trello...now reviewing caps2
jerehas joined
jonaswhas left
Ge0rG
jonasw: it has a todo note
sonnyhas joined
mhterreshas joined
suzyohas left
suzyohas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
jonasw
Ge0rG: what has?
Martinhas joined
Ge0rG
jonasw: the URL
jonasw
ah okay
nicolas.veritehas joined
Holger
Tobias, dwd:
> <Tobias> Dave Cridland, well..p1 implemented it [MIX] too, not?
> <Dave Cridland> Tobias, They implementing grouchat over pubsub; not quite the same thing.
They implemented both.
Holger
(Well, an early revision of MIX.)
nicolas.veritehas left
dwd
Holger, That's actually the one I was referring to. The thing they said was early MIX was a brief discussion; it didn't, for example, handle <presence/> or <message/> stanzas in the traditional way, a design feature that lasted all of a week or so and was contentious at the time.
vurpohas left
nyconycohas joined
Holger
Yeah whatever, just wanted to clarify that there's two totally unrelated pieces of code, so you were both right :-)
vurpohas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Holger
Oh.
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Holger
Sorry you were referring to mod_mix, finally got that now.
Holger
While at it, personally I think if there's any chance to move non-essential functionality out of the core MIX spec into separate XEPs, that should be strongly considered.
dwd
Holger, I agree. I'm not sure what remains to be removed.
nyconycohas left
Holger
I can totally see use cases for anonymous chat, but they don't seem to be the common me, so it would be nice if implenting that would be optional (esp. on the client side_.
Holger
*implementing
Tobias
Holger, indeed...it's quite an amount to review
MattJ
To be honest I'm not sure that MIX should even attempt to compete with use-cases that MUC already covers
MattJ
but maybe it's too early in the morning to be so controversial
jonasw
which use-cases does MUC actually cover?
dwd
Holger, Anonymity seems very fundamental to operations, though.
dwd
Holger, And crucial where it arises.
dwd
jonasw, Being shit on mobile?
dwd
No, seriously, MUC covers >90% of what anyone needs for pure synchronous ephemeral chat. I don't think it's hard to make MIX cover that, too, but I think MIX can and should spread its wings wider, at least in potential.
MattJ
dwd, because?
MattJ
(to your comment about mobile)
Steve Kille
dwd: +1
dwd
MattJ, The tie between your session and your participation, WRT mobile. It can be worked around to some degree, though, but it's a bit of a pain.
MattJ
Right
MattJ
Maybe it is a bit of a pain, but here comes a whole new spec that isn't exactly trivial either
dwd
MattJ, I suspect that most servers will find it *easier* to implement than we have done do far in Openfire.
dwd
MattJ, Due to the architecture, we couldn't reuse any of the MAM code, nor PubSub code, nor even the MUC code.
dwd
Not that any of that code is bad, it's just either in the wrong place, or highly focussed to what it does.
Tobias
like the s2s code? :)
dwd
Tobias, The S2S code is just very old, basically. We've updated it a considerable amount over the past few years, including fixing a bunch of security issues.
Manchohas left
Tobiasstill can't recursively disco igniterealtime.org
dwd
Tobias, The MUC code, and the pubsub code, both have near-complete, all-options, implementations of '45 and '60 respectively, with full clustering.
Manchohas left
dwd
Tobias, Sure - I've not fixed the issue you found yet. It's a hang-up of Openfire originally assuming that x.domain.example could always be reached at domain.example; that assumption has entered code in a large number of cases.
Guus
no-one is arguing that that s2s bug should be fixed, Tobias. Daytime jobs and all.. :)
Tobias
Guus, dwd, yeah i know..just nitpicking :)
Guus
interop problems are annoying
Guus
you should simply switch to Openfire and be done. :)
Guusducks, runs
Tobias
Guus, and you are 100% sure that openfire would not have that issue :P
Guus
(I'm somewhat in a defiant optimistic mood now that it turns out i'm not living in the newest populist-governed country)
dwd
Tobias, Actually yes, because the assumption operates bidirectionally.
dwd
Guus, As you should be.
Tobias
dwd, i wonder if there could be a security issue there
dwd
Tobias, Actually, I suspect this case is due to authenticating domains individually rather than authorizing as domain-pairs. So no security issue.
Tobias
dwd, didn't you propose some standard for that once? bidi or dwd?
Guus
Tobias: yes.
Guus
also, what he said
Guus
(eww, lag)
dwd
Tobias, No. Those still operate on pairs.
Tobias
but it was a practice gtalk was doing right? reusing a s2s connection for all their domains?
dwd
Tobias, That's different... Piggybacking is fine. But you still have to authorize pair-wise.
Tobias
ok
Valerianhas left
nyco
hey, are you aware?
https://www.erlang-solutions.com/blog/21-xmpp-use-cases-and-the-best-ways-to-achieve-them.html
sorry, looks like a shameful ad...
Flowhas joined
nyco
it is interesting, as we discussed that many many times
nyco
how to read the massive amounts of XEPs
nyco
how to triage the massive amounts of infos that are behind each XEP
archas left
archas joined
nyco
do it give ideas on how to present our XEP list or feature list?
sonnyhas left
Manchohas left
Ge0rG
Wow, a burst of discussion. I think that the fact it takes multiple hours to read and understand MIX might indeed mean we won't see IM MIXes any time soon.
Ge0rG
While MUC is really broken in some regards, it can be fixed with a bunch of undocumented hacks.
jubalhhas joined
kalkinhas joined
jonaswhas left
Valerianhas joined
kalkinhas left
Tobias
it's all a matter of having the right abstraction in your software...and if you then already have pubsub and MAM in place, i don't think MIX is that mich work, at least a minimal version
Ge0rG
Tobias: I've tried to read the XEP (admittedly I also did some light editing along the way), and I managed to read ~40% in 2 hours.
Ge0rG
Tobias: if you have the right abstractions in your software, it still takes multiple hours to understand how to stack them
Tobias
sure
Ge0rG
I'm not sure if it would help to refactor the XEP into "Client Developers Read This", and the same for Server Devs and Service Devs.
Tobias
mostly it covers so many things...i mean user experiences like whatsapp group chats, doesn't require 4 different affilations/roles, etc.
danielhas left
Ge0rG
Tobias: yes, it attempts to be everything to everyone.
danielhas joined
Ge0rG
If history is repeating itself, we'll have a MIX-Light in five years that is a one-man-show slim rework of MIX, similar to what MAM is to Message Archiving, PEP is to PubSub and Blocking Command is to Privacy Lists.
Ge0rG
...and http-upload is to Jingle FT
Ge0rG
Tobias: btw, you intended to update https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XEP_and_RFC_Remarks/RFC_6121:_XMPP-IM with that one corner case you were talking about yesterday
Tobias
somewhere I have a tab open about that, yes
Tobiasopens a new tab for it :)
Flowhas left
Guus
that makes three rows of tabs, right?
Tobias
chrome can't do mulit rows
Tobias
but there's a nice plugin that removes duplicate tabs :)
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
kalkinhas joined
sonnyhas joined
Archas joined
Arc
Amazon Smile is donating 10% of purchases to your chosen charity today
Arc
so if you've selected XMPP as your charity on smile.amazon.com be sure to make purchases ;-)
mathieui
if you’re in the US
Ge0rG
Arc: XMPP is a charity?
Tobias
Ge0rG, sure...feeding the hungry in africa
kaboomhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Ge0rG
Xenophobics' Money for Poor People?
Ge0rG
I'm sure it's a SCAM.
Tobias
Ge0rG, they probably delegated the chairity part to paypal..they are experts at this
intosi
Super Cool Automatic Messenger?
jubalhhas left
Viniloxhas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
dwd
I should put MIX onto dave.cridland.net, shouldn't I? Are any [other] client developers wanting to play?
jonasw
dwd: yes
jonasw
not this month, but yes
dwd
jonasw, What library?
jonasw
aioxmpp
Valerianhas left
dwd
jonasw, Ah, heh. We nearly put MIX support into that, before deciding to base our test suite around Java instead.
jonasw
aw pity
dwd
jonasw, We have partial implementation, so far, only in stanza.io. I'm awaiting confirmation that'll all be offered upstream (I can't imagine why not).
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
archas left
archas joined
Tobiashas joined
nycohas joined
Manchohas joined
Valerianhas joined
Valerianhas left
nycohas joined
jerehas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
Ge0rG
dwd: any chance you can have a look at https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg and maybe provide feedback if action is required from my side, regarding repairing the MUC protocol?
Tobias
Ge0rG, btw: just added the text to the wiki page
Ge0rG
Tobias: thanks. Any ideas on how to fix that? Let server push a presence change to the other clients?
Tobias
with full to and from attributes, yeah
dwd
Ge0rG, FWIW, I'm a little uncomfortable with "SHOULD" here, given you're adding a normative requirement post-facto. But I suppose this is probably as good as it gets, so I'm not going to block.
Yagizahas joined
Ge0rG
Tobias: I also noticed some multi client weirdness when *accepting* a subscription request, have you looked into that as well?
Tobias
Ge0rG, with accepting clients should receive a roster push, not?
Tobias
Ge0rG, also...i thought you were planning to replace the SHOULD with a MAY?
Tobias
"TLDR either change the wording to MAY or add a sentence that implementations MUST NOT rely on it." <--- regarding that
Ge0rG
dwd: thanks for the feedback. I think that we should be able to change our specifications over time, or we will end up with multiple generations of imperfect XEPs attempting to solve the same problem, evolving over the years
kaboomhas left
Ge0rG
Tobias: I added the sentence
dwd
Ge0rG, I don't disagree. I don't think that ought to involve simply declaring everything non-conformant. I don't see much of an option in this case, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it.
Ge0rG
dwd: IMHO, this approach has two benefits. First, it provides a clear path for new implementors to do the right thing. Second, it provides a bit of leverage to get existing implementations fixed.
dwd
Ge0rG, But they weren't broken...
dwd
Ge0rG, Not from a standards point of view.
dwd
Ge0rG, The actual protocol seems fine. My concern is with establishing the case that conformance isn't acheivable, or important.
Ge0rG
dwd: they were compliant to an imperfect specification. One *could* consider this as broken
dwd
Ge0rG, Nothing is perfect. What we want is interoperable.
dwd
Ge0rG, And if things aren't interoperable, I'd rather they weren't despite following the specification rather than because they didn't.
dwd
Ge0rG, To put it another way, the pattern of declaring existing conformant implementations non-conformant isn't a pattern I'd like to see continue.
Ge0rG
dwd: the two largest server implementations already exhibit the new behavior.
dwd
Ge0rG, That's irrelevant.
dwd
Ge0rG, I'm not saying the protocol change is bad - I've explicitly said it seems the right solution.
dwd
Ge0rG, I'm saying the choice of how the change has been made is not something I want to see ever again.
jerehas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Valerianhas joined
intosihas left
nicolas.veritehas left
Ge0rG
dwd: I don't see a better way to change MUC, except for a hard fork. And I think we all agree that that would not really be better.
waqashas joined
Ge0rG
TBH, I'd like to also add more explicit words to 0045 regarding repeated join presences from the same full JID, and also do another take on the message ID stability for reflected messages.
dwd
Ge0rG, I agree this is the best of a bad bunch. I'm just saying that introducing new normative requirements to an existing specification is a problem.
dwd
Ge0rG, For repeated joins: I think there's consensus on the approach now, but it's not clear that we could put this in as anything more than an implementation note nonetheless. But Openfire, M-Link, and possibly others do it the "right" way.
dwd
Ge0rG, For message id stability, there's really no chance. I've changed my mind on that one over the years, but there's no universally-agreed "right" way. It is, however, "fixed" in MIX.
dwd
Ge0rG, Mind you, a note saying that implementations differ on message id stability would be good if you want to pen one.
Ge0rG
dwd: my reading of rfc 2119 is more flexible, and I tend to accept "this was not part of the XEP when I implemented it" as a valid exception to a SHOULD.
dwd
Ge0rG, But that would suggest nobody would ever need to implement it... Which I don't think you really mean.
jonasw
dwd: to be frank, as a relative newcomer to XMPP, this kind of stance is annoying. If there is a consensus on how something should be done, that should be written in the XEPs. Yes, during the transition period, some implementations won’t get it right. If that’s any better, we can make it a MAY first and after a year or so make it a SHOULD. But if you only make it an implementation note, I as a developer *cannot* at all rely on that behaviour, and it doesn’t look as if I ever can, so it is often useless to me.
Ge0rG
dwd: MAY is completely optional. SHOULD at least provides direction in how to do it best
MattJ
As far as I'm aware there was only ever one implementation that rewrote ids on messages, and it tripped up everyone when it appeared
dwd
jonasw, I get that. The protocol can and should change. And if the specification says "SHOULD", you really should be able to rely on it. If we abuse that by introducing *new* normative languages into *existing* protocol, you can't.
jonasw
dwd, Ge0rG: at the same time, when such changes are made, it is important to keep a hint on that this was changed "recently" inside the text. The list of versions below is not really discoverable, and finding important changes among the long list of changes is often hard (if the list of changes is even complete). Otherwise, one might be confused by implementation which do not handle this correctly; although that can be mitigated by making that (nothing) -> MAY -> SHOULD transition.
jonasw
dwd: what about that MAY -> SHOULD transition?
sonnyhas left
jonasw
new implementations will see where the journey is going and there is something to point existing implementations to to achieve change
jonasw
MattJ: I think daniel mentioned some gateways (Slack?) which did that, too
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
dwd
jonasw, I don't think introducing new normative requirements to existing protocol is *ever* the ideal path. I think we want to add new *protocol*, and then add this to the requirements for a given compliance level.
Kev
jonasw: Spec versions (by protocol) should be interoperable.
Kev
If I see feature X offered, I should know that I will interoperate with it if I implement the spec.
Kev
Not that I might or might not interoperate with it based on the age of the implementation.
jonasw
okay, can we add a <feature/> then?
dwd
Or that I might not interoperate with it next week.
jonasw
that would work for "I am not rewriting message IDs" for example
Kev
Where we want to break things such that that isn't true, we do it by changing the negotiated feature (by our faux-versioning scheme).
dwd
jonasw, Sure, and we can certainly do that.
Kev
The issue here is that we're trying to avoid bumping the namespace version in MUC for obvious reasons.
dwd
Kev, We can also add new features.
Kev
dwd: Different issue if you're adding a new feature, in a sense :)
Kev
But yes.
dwd
Kev, MAM's recent :1 -> :2 transition could have done that, and it's somewhat frustrating that it hasn't.
dwd
Kev, But behavioural differences can be expressed as a new feature almost always.
Kev
dwd: If thre's a better way, you could suggest rolling back to :1 with additional features.
devnullhas left
Kev
Given I doubt anyone implements :2 (and if it's true that it just needs new features, that might be smart).
MattJ
Prosody implements :2
Ge0rG
Maybe we should entirely abandon the version bumping thing for new features and only use it for breaking changes.
MattJ
and iirc Conversations (but not 100% sure)
Kev
Oh. 0.10 or something?
Kev
Or are we on 0.11 now?
MattJ
0.10
jonasw
Ge0rG: +1
nicolas.veritehas joined
dwd
MattJ, The MAM protocol itself is entirely unchanged on the wire. When used with MIX, nothing changes at all. Aside from everything, due to bumping the namespace/
nicolas.veritehas left
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, of course. That was *always* the intent.
dwd
Ge0rG, See XEP-0053, §4, point 2.
Kev
Yes, new features that don't break the existing stuff should be by additional feature negotiation, not by bumping the namespace.
Ge0rG
dwd: so it would be perfectly OK with you if I added the stable ID thing into MUC with an additional feature?
dwd
Ge0rG, You can't. :-) Otherwise I would have suggested it.
Ge0rG
dwd: what's wrong with it?
dwd
Ge0rG, But you've done this by - quite rightly - allowing either clients or servers to add the PM marker.
dwd
Ge0rG, You could have a feature that indicated the server would do this for you. Perhaps you should.
Ge0rG
dwd: I'm not talking about <x>, I'm talking about keeping the message ID on reflection
Kev
The thing you can't do is say that servers SHOULD or MUST implement such a new feature. The point of upgrades-through-features is that they might not happen :)
dwd
Ge0rG, Oh that. Yes, sure.
Kev
No reason a server can't advertise a feature saying "I'll keep ids stable".
archas left
archas joined
Ge0rG
dwd: though I could imagine adding a <feature> for <x> as well, I'm just not sure what that would give in that specific case.
Kev
What you can't then do is say servers SHOULD or MUST implement this.
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: as I wrote earlier, I consider "SHOULD" to be the appropriate wording for such things, because it indicates the purpose and intent of our Great Master Plan. Foregoing that for the sake of backwards compatibility to the year 2002 is just not right
Ge0rG
Kev: It's the right thing to RECOMMEND server implementations to do these awesome new things nobody thought of in 2002, and to have a <feature> advertising that.
Ge0rG
Kev: actually, those two are almost completely orthogonal aspects of a protocol change.
Ge0rG
(at least in my eyes)
Kev
I know you consider that. I just don't think that's the appropriate reading of SHOULD.
dwd
Ge0rG, And I strongly believe you to be wrong. Not because recommending people implement something new is wrong, but because RECOMMENDing people do something new is wrong.
Kev
^
Ge0rG
RFC 2119 does not provide approrpiate wording to go with the time.
dwd
Ge0rG, You can strongly encourage. You can advise. But if you RECOMMEND, you are changing the past.
Kev
I think Dave's spot on here.
Ge0rG
dwd: I see what you mean.
dwd
Ge0rG, You *can*, though, say that for XMPP Server 2018 conformance, your new thing is REQUIRED.
Ge0rG
"Server implementations created in the year 2017 or later SHOULD add an <x> tag to PMs. All other implementations are strongly encouraged to do so."
Kev
Ge0rG: Which isn't needed for interop. So just go with 'strongly recommended' and MAY :)
dwd
Ge0rG, Sorta. We have XEPs specifically designed to do what you want. I RECOMMEND you help work on those. ;-)
Kev
It doesn't matter whether it's a new implementation that doesn't do it or an old one, an entity has to cope regardless.
Kev
Sorry, 'strongly suggested', senior moment.
Ge0rG
I'm still not really convinced though. IMO our main goal is to have clear normative language that corresponds to the state of affairs as it is now, if only to attract new people to XMPP and to make implementors' lives as easy as possible. I'm okay with changing the past to achieve that, and people who feel betrayed by that can still dig up the old version of the XEP as their motivation to violate the new RECOMMENDation.
bjchas left
bjchas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Kev
If you implement the current version of a spec, and get weird interop problems with something else that looks like it's the same version, you've had your life made difficult, not easier.
Ge0rG
really, sentences like this are frightening in a network protocol specification:
"The following is a suggested set of rules a server MAY use, or it MAY use its own; in either case it SHOULD follow the general intent of these rules."
suzyohas left
Kev
Terrifying. I can scarcely sleep at night.
intosihas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: everybody has their own nightmares, I suppose.
Ge0rG
Kev: re "get weird interop problems with something else", my reading of SHOULD in 2119 is that no other party may actually rely on it anyway, because you might always have a reason not to follow the RECOMMENDation
MattJ
I read it the other way: if you break a SHOULD, you have to deal with potential interop problems from that
Kev
What MattJ says.
Kev
Otherwise SHOULD is no different to MAY.
Ge0rG
So there is nothing in between SHOULD and MAY that conveys "do it this way, but if you don't then the others have to cope with it"
moparisthebest
isn't MUST the word where breaking it makes interop problems happen?
Ge0rG
I suppose this actually was a wise design decision on behalf of the Elders of the Internet
Kev
moparisthebest: No, SHOULD is.
Kev
Ge0rG: If others have to cope with it, it's MAY.
moparisthebest
then how do MUST and SHOULD differ Kev ?
Kev
From an interoperability point of view - which is what 2119 language cares about
Kev
moparisthebest: For SHOULD, you might understand how one can not implement it without affecting interop.
Ge0rG
Kev: yes, on re-reading 2119 this became apparent to me now. Thanks to you and Dave and Matt for being patient with me
Kev
But generally, in a spec a SHOULD should be matched with 'except when...'
Ge0rG
So effectively I MUST NOT change the normative language of an XEP without either making it conditional on a new feature or bumping the namespace.
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Kev
SHOULD NOT, except where you can mitigate interop considerations in some manner, yes.
Kev
:)
Ge0rG
Kev: heh :P
moparisthebest
yea I need to re-read 2119 it's been too long, thanks :)
Ge0rG
However, the question remains what is the most elegant way to convey a new intent (like in the case of <x/>) and to make it a SHOULD eventually
Valerianhas left
Guushas left
Yagizahas left
Valerianhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
goffihas left
waqashas left
suzyohas joined
kaboomhas left
Guushas left
uchas left
SamWhited
ralphm: Ping, reminder to create me a trello board and add me to the XSF organization if possible
Tobias
and check if the board board and the council board belong to the XSF org
SamWhited
the board board does, the council board doesn't; we should probably fix that.
Tobias
right
Ge0rG
board the board board?
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Valerianhas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Kev
I can fix the Council Board once Ralph makes me as XSF admin.
uchas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
Guushas left
jerehas joined
ralphmhas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
ralphmhas joined
Yagizahas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
waqashas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Tobiashas joined
kaboomhas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Flowhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
suzyohas left
suzyohas joined
Ge0rGhas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
waqashas left
Ge0rGhas left
bjchas left
suzyohas left
bjchas joined
suzyohas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Yagizahas joined
jonaswhas left
Manchohas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Valerianhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Archas left
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
Ge0rGhas left
ralphm
Kev: looking right now
Tobiashas left
ralphm
Kev: do you already have an Trello identifier?
ralphm
SamWhited: you, too?
SamWhited
ralphm: yup, it's just my name, same as my nick
SamWhited
I think I'm already on the board trello, but not in the organization so it shows up in my "Personal boards"
ralphm
and now?
SamWhited
yup, that did it
SamWhited
Excellent; I can create an editor board now too. Thanks.
Tobiashas left
ralphm
SamWhited: who owns the Council board, and can he/she initiate a transfer or something?
SamWhited
ralphm: Let me check; I think it's Kev.
SamWhited
Kev, Lance, and Tobias are admins; not sure if that's the same as owner or not.
Ge0rGhas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
ralphm
There should be a 'change team' in the setting of the board
ralphm
Hmm. I'm not the owner of the Board board. Only bear and Laura.
ralphm
eh, admin
Yagizahas left
ralphm
Even though I am admin of the team, I cannot change that
SamWhited
Board board appears to already be on the team, I think?
dwd
I've nudged Laura, but she seems to be busy.
SamWhited
oh, you just want to be an admin; nevermind, makes sense.
Laurahas joined
ralphm
SamWhited: it is either a documentation bug, or an implementation bug. I filed a ticket.
kaboomhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jerehas joined
Laura
hello…
dwd
Laura, ralphm was after the Trello board ownership.
kaboomhas left
ralphm
Yeah, so it turns out I am admin of the team, not the Board Meetings board.
Does MAM on MIX archive the outgoing message or the incoming one?
Ge0rGwould assume that archiving happens on the pubsub node, so only for messages reflected by the MIX
brahas left
Kev
dwd: You mean pre-or-post unspecified munging, or something else?
dwd
That.
Kev
What you get out should be what would be sent to you.
Kev
So if you had a pastebin running, I'd expect to get the munged URL from MAM, not the paste that I submitted.
dwd
So is the from attribute set to the MIX on the forwarded message? Does it have <jid/>? (That's what I thought... But the only example is 52 and shows the opposite).
Yagizahas joined
Steve Kille
Kev: yes
Steve Kille
I will sort the text
Kev
dwd: The from is always the MIX for MIX messages isn't it?
dwd
Kev, Yes. See Example 52.
mimi89999has joined
Kev
by looks right to me, and from looks like a typo.
Kev
Is that consistent with your reading?
dwd
Yup. Ta.
Zash
Are the to/from attributes even needed in MIX-MAM?
Kev
Zash: Not really needed, but it's how MAM works, so there doesn't seem huge value removing them.
Kev
The <jid xmlns='urn:xmpp:mix:0'>coven+123456@mix.shakespeare.example</jid>, which is always the proxy JID, needs to be in the archived messages to say who it's really from.
Kev
That's 123456#coven@mix... now, of course :)
Ge0rG
Steve Kille, Kev: what about using 12345%coven@mix? It might be more in line with existing transports, that encode transported IDs by replacing @ with %
Kev
Ge0rG: That was exactly my motivation for *not* using it (same as \), I didn't want any confusion when conflating it with existing stuff.
Ge0rG
Not that I'd oppose "#", it's also used by transport JIDs (e.g. for irc: `#channel%irc.server.net@irc-transport.xmpp`)
dwd
Can we have non-numeric proxy jidlets, too? (As in, in the examples - I assume it's legal)
Ge0rG
Kev: that's a great point
Kev
Ge0rG: Yeah. I realised that, but it seems like the least bad option from what Steve and I discussed earlier. I'm not tied to the octothorp, other than loving the name.
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Ge0rG
what about using UUIDs? *ducks&runs*
Kev
dwd: That'd probably be sensible.
Kev
Ge0rG: What, 123456<uid>coven@mix...? :)
Ge0rG
Kev: I had to look up into the example to determine what an octothorp is.
Kev
Ah, 'hashtag' to you youngsters.
Ge0rG
Kev: no, `#<uuid>+<uuid>@uuid.server.xmpp/<uuid>/<uuid>`
Zash
BRÄDGÅRD
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm part of the generation that associates "#" with channels, actually
Ge0rG
Kev: so having `#channel` in the JID rings a bell with me
Kev
Well, Twitter hashtags came from IRC. IRC users started using them to associate messages informally, them actually being a 'thing' came later.
Ge0rG
personally, I liked '+' and was surprised by its demise.
Zash
I thought it was meant as an inverse channel?
jerehas joined
Kev
Ge0rG: I liked it, but + in local parts has a definite semantic from email. I felt that reversing the semantic would be confusing.
Kev
But your arguments about proxypart coming first seemed compelling.
Ge0rG
yay!
Kev
So, changing the separator seemed sensible.
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm not sure if we are going to expose the proxy JIDs at all to non-tech users, and we are going to realize it's not an email anyway
Kev
End users are probably less likely to recognise the + notation than devs. It was confusing devs that I was worried about.
Ge0rG
So my vote goes to '+', with '%' a remote second.
moparisthebest
+ isn't really an email standard anyway, iirc sendmail used +, and qmail or something used -
moparisthebest
I have my postfix configured to accept +, -, or . as that seperator :)
Ge0rG
what about using a slug of the user's nickname to create the proxy JIDlet?
Zash
What if they change it?
Ge0rG
Zash: keep it as-is. Also if somebody tries to collide, obviously, use a different JIDlet
Kev
Ge0rG: I think we leave choice of proxy JID parts up to the service.
Kev
So if they wanted to do that, they could.
Ge0rG
Kev: but we could RECOMMEND something. It's not too late! :D
vurpohas left
Zash
I'd also like to say that I don't think structured data belongs in jid parts, but I haven't manged to read all of MIX yet so I don't know if there's a good enough reason.
Ge0rG
Zash: pseudonymity combined with routability.
Kev
Zash: I agree, in principle, but it also doesn't seem harmful, and is beneficial in this case.
Ge0rG
Zash: the MIX needs to provide JIDs for all resources of all participants, in a way that prevents you from obtaining their real identity
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
Kev
Right, the Council Trello board is now in the XSF org.
vurpohas joined
Kev
ralphm: Thanks for the team stuff.
jerehas joined
sezuanhas joined
Lancehas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
SamWhited
Yey! Thanks Kev and ralphm
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
uchas left
uchas joined
goffihas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
ralphmhas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
Martinhas left
vurpohas joined
ralphmhas left
vurpohas left
sezuanhas left
vurpohas joined
sonnyhas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
SamWhited
I just discovered that Trello has "due dates". I haven't used this before. ♡
nycohas left
nicolas.veritehas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
nicolas.veritehas left
archas left
archas joined
waqashas joined
kalkinhas left
waqashas left
waqashas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Steve Killehas joined
archas left
Ge0rGhas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
archas joined
jonasw
Guus: you wanted me to write a blogpost. I cannot recall what it was about
jubalhhas joined
tim@boese-ban.dehas joined
tim@boese-ban.dehas joined
moparisthebest
how about the meaning of life
Zash
42?
Guus
jonasw: anything xmpp related? :)
jonasw
Guus: I cannot recall.
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
Guus
ah, it was pretty obvious, actually: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2017-03-13/#11:59:19
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
jonasw
oh right
Ge0rGhas left
vurpohas left
Steve Killehas left
vurpohas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
nicolas.veritehas joined
nicolas.veritehas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
kalkinhas joined
nicolas.veritehas joined
Lancehas left
vurpohas left
vurpohas joined
nycohas left
nicolas.veritehas left
Yagizahas left
Zash
Was there someone asking why the mam:2 namespace bump was needed?
Zash
IIRC MattJ said things about security considerations that sounded reasonable. Integration with stanza-ids, and stuff.
MattJ
I think dwd was arguing that we should have had a "stanza-ids-are-mam-ids" feature instead of bumping the main namespace
efrithas joined
MattJ
There were some other changes though (though not as many as I originally had in the doc when we decided to bump the namespace)
dwd
I couldn't *find* any other changes... Might well have been textual ones.