HolgerVery XMPP-like. "It might work this way but maybe not, you never know!"
edhelasby puting headlines in MAM we could simply forget "on_sub_and_presence" and set pubsub#send_last_published_item to "never"
goffiedhelas: headline are not supposed to be stored offline, I would change it for MUST NOT
HolgerThe question is whether that rule makes sense.
goffiand pubsub notifications should not be headline IMHO
HolgerAnd if it does, maybe we want to find a different solution to do what edhelas suggests.
HolgerI think the basic idea makes a lot of sense.
goffiat least not by default
danielWell this forces clients to do MAM
HolgerThe obvious problem is that this won't work for clients that don't support MAM.
danielAnd MAM is a lot harder than just parsing incoming notifications
danielThis doesn't only effect legacy clients
danielAnd MAM is experimental
edhelaswell we can still put headlines in MAM and progressively deprecate that in Pubsub
goffiagain, headline should not be stored offline
Holgerdaniel: Because you might not fetch all history since your last session from MAM?
HolgerI see the issues. But I totally agree that resending unmodified PEP nodes on each and every login is stupid and can become a scalability issue.
danielHolger: well I'm thinking about someone implementing a new client from scratch wanting to support avatars or omemo and they would also have to implement mam from the very beginning
danielIt will just make it more complicated to write clients
moparisthebestthat's a different broader topic, but we need to start advancing XEPs
edhelasdaniel, We can have both, still have on_sub_and_presence and MAM. But knowing that the server handle the headlines, I'd just drop the incoming PEP stanzas and handle only the MAM ones.
moparisthebestxeps everyone has to implement for 'modern' chat experiences currently range from experimental to deferred and everything in between
moparisthebesteven 'draft' doesn't sound that great, and, apparantly, nothing EVER gets moved to final :)
HolgerIf we put stanzas in MAM we'll also put them in offline storage so testing single-client usage should work without depending on MAM. Multi-client UX is bad without MAM anyway.
danielAnd there was some backlash when I tried to add more features to pep from people who want to keep pep really simple.
HolgerBut I see how we don't want to require clients to always retrieve *all* MAM history.
danielI imagine those people won't be happy when we depend pep on mam
jonaswI don’t have a strong opinion on your other pep suggestions, but depending pep on mam sounds horrifying.
jonaswbut ... it kind of makes sense :/
edhelasand MAM is part of the 2017 compliance suites
mimi89999What is it all about?
edhelaswell this is about finding links and coherence between the existing XEPs
goffiI don't see the issue, 1) on_sub_and_presence is the default but can be disabled, 2) pubsub notification should be normal messages, not headline, so they will be in MAM 3) and again headline should not be stored offline
jonaswedhelas, sure, but avatars are Core Client, MAM is Advanced Client
ZashWeren't there something where you'd include a timestamp of your last notification and things would avoid sending notifications unless they have newer data
goffiZash: pubsub since ?
danielBut in general; the amount of bootstrapping and the resulting traffic I have to do on a full connect is enormous
goffiNyco already talked about this in a summit, but no action has been taken.
moparisthebestand you can tell even in conversations which tries to hide it (if you disconnect an account, then toggle it back on, the 'Connecting...' phase takes FOREVER)
edhelasfor my account, I have ~5/6MB to download from the server
Holgergoffi: type=normal will only go into MAM if it has a body, according to the rules.
goffiHolger: oh I see, then this should be changed. But keeping headline is really bad idea IMO
Holgergoffi: And I think it's desirable to agree on a single way for syncing PEP items. If one client depends on on_sub_and_presence and another one disables it, that won't help UX.
goffiHolger: the fact is that it can be disabled already now
danielgoffi: about the amount of data on connect? That was the summit two years ago even
jonaswaaand we’re back to persistent/transient messages :)
Holgergoffi: I was not arguing it can't :-) I was wondering about what's desirable.
danielYes. I would really like to have a recursive disco caps hash thing that also hashes items
goffiHolger: I generaly like the fact that you can adapt to your special case, but the trick is as it is done now, we can't be sure that we have the desired bahaviour without checking node config
jonaswdaniel, just the list of disco items or whole pubsub items?
danielOr rewrite Conversations to hold state across restarts and just resume all the time
danieljonasw: disco items mainly
jonaswjust disco items isn’t difficult
jonaswwe could add this to XEP-0390
daniel(and their caps hashes of course)
jonaswdaniel, I’m not sure how that helps though
goffiI'm not sure it would help to hash items, it's working well with feature because it's a quite static data, but items can change a lot and often (think about MUC rooms)
danielSo I don't have to refetch all items' features on every connection
jonaswwhat kind of items?
danieljonasw: when trying to figure out where the conference server or http upload server is
Holgergoffi: Our specs can be adapted to many use cases, but we're sometimes bad at specifying a single solution for a given use case, which results in bad interop. This would be another such case, IMO.
jonaswdaniel, ah, right
jonaswdaniel, do servers really have that many items that it matters?
goffiHolger: I agree
jonaswinteresting, examples please?
jonaswI wonder what’d be in there aside of a conference and an upload domain maybe
daniel3 or 4 at least. Http upload, conference, pubsub
danielGateways on old and stupid servers 😊
jonaswdaniel, I wonder whether we could expand the disco#items response to include hashes if servers support it
jonaswthat is a reasonable extension, and perfectly backwards compatbile
danieljonasw: yes I should probably raise this on the list again
jonaswI’m all in for adding this to XEP-0390 if nobody finds a notable issues with it.
danielTwo step process. Include the hashes in the items response. And then do a hash over the items
daniel*the items hashes
danielI have a few ideas regarding Syntax but I'm on my phone right now. Can type them out tomorrow or so for the list
jonaswdaniel, I was thinking <item ...><caps xmlns="..."><hash>...</hash>...</caps></item>
edhelasso regarding my proposal ?
danielThere were also concerns from server items regarding how the server should know the caps hash of the item
daniel(I think I brought this up before)
daniel*from server developers
danielThank God mailman offers a convenient way to search the archive and Flows offer to setup discord way rejected
HolgerDiscourse even :-)
goffidaniel: why "on old and stupid servers" ?
danielgoffi: because 2005 just called and wants their broken transports into networks nobody uses back
edhelashttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0312.html , looks like MAM to me
danielA call our friends at matrix never received by the way
goffidaniel: there are gateways for IRC, mattermost, Skype, etc. I would not say nobody use those
edhelasgateways that are implementing 20% of the features, buggy, breaks after weeks/months
edhelasmaybe except for IRC
goffithats for bad gateways
edhelasbecause it's a quite stable protocol
goffiIs there any spec to resend message by a server when destinee server is offline? Something like SMTP which retry after a delay?
Ge0rGgoffi: one could use 0198 on s2s links
goffiGeOrG: that works for short outage in existing server, but I'm thinking more about first message to offline server.
Ge0rGgoffi: it might be a better UX to reject the message immediately. How are you supposed to know if that server exists at all?
goffiyou're not, but would be nice to try for a little while like email.
ZashSome servers do
jonaswgoffi, I think trying for a while isn’t a good idea for IM
jonasw(for certain definitions of "while")
jonaswa few minutes may be ok
ZashThat's great when it's spam they are trying to send, and you end up with one billion connection attempts
goffiZash: same for email, and it works quite OK
ZashEmail isn't Instant Messaging
Ge0rGBut Jabber is the Email of IM!
Holgergoffi: I'm about to implement just that. I think it's horrible that we don't survive remote server reboots.
Holgergoffi: But I don't think we need any spec for that.
Ge0rGisn't "survive" very relative?
Ge0rGI think it would be a better UX, in a federated IM network, to have a "send again" button on failed messages.
ZashFail early, fail often!
HolgerUsers love errors.
Ge0rGHolger: yeah, silent failure is much better.
HolgerDid I suggest that?
HolgerOf course you return an error if retrying fails for n minutes.
Ge0rGI think that having N>1 wouldn't be wise.
HolgerGe0rG: IIRC I can submit a message from Yaxim while I'm offline? Why don't you return an error?
fippogoffi: servers would have a hard time keeping track of order requirements. so this is probably a responsibility of clients.
HolgerGe0rG: Why not? Because INSTANT?
HolgerGe0rG: Why do we accept pending 0198 sessions for N minutes where N>1 then?
Ge0rGHolger: because instant, yes.
Ge0rGHolger: yaxim has a clear UI indication for offline messages.
moparisthebestjust make sure you have appropriate backoff set up, otherwise a server gets DOS'd, then good servers trying to reconnect and send messages end up DDOS'ing it
Ge0rGHolger: do you have the same on s2s?
goffiHolger: the issue is as a client I want to know if I can rely on this behaviour or not
HolgerGe0rG: No. Just like I don't for the last hop from the recipient's server to the recipient's client.
Holgergoffi: You should rely on the message either being delivered or an error being bounced, IMO.
goffifippo: order would be hard to keep indeed
Ge0rGHolger: but that server at least knows if the client exists.
goffiGe0rG: XMPP is not only about instant messaging
jonaswGe0rG, Holger, you could return a type="continue" error while retrying :)
HolgerGe0rG: So we must return an error immediately because you can't wait 5 minutes for the error if you sent a message to a non-existent contact? Seriously?
Ge0rGOh god. I wonder if there are any clients implementing that.
HolgerMight be a good idea.
jonaswHolger, write a XEP which specifies that behaviour for any intermediary and also adds an element which indicates until when delivery will be re-tried
ZashSomething like the "We're still trying to deliver your email" notifications?
jonaswZash, yupp, but with more easily available semantics
HolgerPlease hold the line!
ZashIs there anything saying how many type=error replies you can get?
jonaswnot that I recall
ZashExcept for <iq>
Ge0rGjonasw: what kind of stanza do you send to revert a type="continue" condition?
jonaswGe0rG, any other?
Ge0rGjonasw: any other what?
Ge0rGany other error?
jonaswthings are getting interesting again
jonaswGe0rG, maybe an opt-in is better for this type of stuff
jonaswin which case another type="continue" "error" (meh) could be sent which indicates that the delivery has continued to the next hop
Ge0rGwe need a new error type "continued"
jonaswthat requires a change to RFC 6120 ;-)
Ge0rGisn't this about EXTENSIBLE?
moparisthebestalso as an email client you have no idea if your email is delivered ever, or whether you will get a delivery failure notification or not either
HolgerI think just retrying a few times instead of giving up immediately will make everyone else happy :-P
moparisthebestso it's a pretty bad comparison
Holgermoparisthebest: You'll get a bounce a few days later.
goffiit's not because email doen't do it that we can't
goffiwe have discovery for that
moparisthebestalso we know (I think) we are only going through 2 hops max, client1 -> server1 -> server2 -> client2
moparisthebestemail can travel through unlimited server hops, each of which can have their own policy where they just scrap your email and notify you or not
moparisthebestthe original argument was 'email retries so we should retry too' but that's not actually the case is my only point, in reality maybe your email server retries, but you can't count on anything
HolgerDunno whether I said that, but my main point is "users want retries to happen automagically rather than having to cope with temporary issues themselves".
goffimoparisthebest: no, the original question was "Is there any spec to resend message by a server when destinee server is offline?", and SMTP was just given as an example
goffiand if a server implement that, I would be able to know it with disco, so I can display it properly in UI
moparisthebestfair enough, I think I agree with Holger though, that there really doesn't need to be a spec, the server should optionally retry once or twice over a short time, and send back an error if unsuccesful
goffiI was hoping for something on a long time (e.g. personal server offline for the week-end because of maintenance), on a short time a spec is probably not needed indeed.
moparisthebestso I send a message to email@example.com and don't get an error message for a week because I missed the ending s ?
goffimoparisthebest: no, I think more about "your message has not been delivered, we'll try to continue sending it for 2 days before giving up"
moparisthebestI still think a user tends to wait instead of double checking their spelling though
Ge0rGHolger: how many attempts do you want to make? and what exactly are you going to attempt?
Ge0rGHolger: I think it is valid for a server to cache a stanza and attempt all the SRVs, direct DNS entries, IPs etc before giving up, but no more than that.
moparisthebestwhat if the DNS server is being rebooted ? :)
Ge0rGI really think that it's better to expose an error in the first <60s and to allow the user to resend with one click.
moparisthebestalso you really aren't supposed to do that with SRV or DNS records
moparisthebestyea I agree
moparisthebestI mean, give or take a few seconds
HolgerGe0rG: Well I would make this configurable, but my initial idea would be to retry for 5 minutes by default, as that's a typical 0198 timeout which seems to work for most people.
goffiwe were talking about using MAM for notification before, delivery would be important there: if a notification is sent while destinee server is offline, it will not get it, and the pubsub item may be missed. This would not be the case with a pure PEP notification.
HolgerMaybe 0312 is not a bad solution for edhelas' issue.
Arcboard meeting in 3 minutes
Arcralphm: nyco: Martin: MattJ: here?
ArcSo, the classic Bside board this week
Arc3/5 but mattj, martin, and myself are a classic combo
Arcah nyco ruins it
nycoI can go
Arcwho's chairing this week?
Arcnyco: its a joke
nycoI am joking too
nycosorry for the misunderanding ;-)
Archumor subroutines confirmed
Arcso who's chairing this week?
Steve Killehas left
MartinI can chair, if just to break the silence...
MartinOk, *bangs gavel in traditional fashion*
Martin1) Roll call
Martin2) Minutes, volunteers?
Martin3) Topics for decisions
MartinRunning from Trello here: https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
blog post on hold
meetup in Krakow
Martin3.1) SCAM. Where did we end up with this?
nycoif my agenda is related to the board
MartinThe agenda comes from Trello. If it's not on Trello, it doesn't get in.
GuusI've left a lot of questions for the board
MartinOK, lets try and rattle through them then
Martin3.1.1) Can SCAM have a budget for things like stickers and folders?
ArcI thought we already approved that
Guusnope - board approved a one-time reimbursement.
Arcwhat kind of budget were you thinking?
nycosure, how much budget?
nycothat is below 1k
Ge0rGmaybe it would be useful to define per-purchase and per-month caps, and to require individual board approval for higher budgets?
Guus500~1000 USD / year
Guussorry, I'm in a building that's being closed down, after which I've got a 2h commute - might be unresponsive.
nycoyeah, that corresponds to our capacity, roughly
nycoI'll have to go at :30
MattJThat seems reasonable to me, though I realise that I don't have any idea how the XSF currently stands financially
Arcwe're doing good
Martin^ What MattJ said
dwdRoughly $10k balance, as I recall.
ArcI'm good with $1k/year
nycowe vote on what?
Martin$1k/year for SCAM
MartinGood, moving on
Martin3.1.2)Can SCAM get access to the social media account(s) (for event announcement purposes). Notably: Twitter. The blog is accessible enough via PRs on the website project.
MattJHow is Twitter currently handled? Who else has access to it?
stefandxmis there a meeting going on?
dwdstefandxm, Yes, XSF Board.
stefandxmty, then i will back off :)
nycowe could use tools such as HootSuite or Buffer, so that everyone has its own account/password
Guus(back, now from a parking lot with crappy reception)
nycoso that the SM accounts passwds are not shared
Arcor write a twitter-xmpp bot that does the same :-P
Arcthat was a joke
GuusI'm less interested in the how, as in the approval itself.
MartinSo, we need to find out who has access, and hook them up with Guus, agreed?
nycois it a board duty to approve that?
Ge0rGArc: that bot would then post a dozen of russian spam messages a day, just to make a point.
dwdnyco, In as much as it has not been devolved elsewhere.
GuusI'd be happy to find the person(s) with access myself, btw.
nycoSCAM should be responsible for SM accounts
ZashWasn't there a social media team or such before?
Guusnyco: unsure, but topic for another meeting. SCAM is not commteam.
nycoah good point
jonaswgiven the time is nearly up, are we still discussing technical details or is this on-topic?
nycoI guess commTeam could merge in SCAM
jonaswcause I’d like to have my trademark application discussed
nycofor what it does...
Guusnyco. please, first the questions at hand
GuusI've been waiting for weeks on feedback
Guusgiven the time limitation: your votes please?
Ge0rGcan't you just approve that SCAM team shall get access to SM?
MartinOK, so, we're happy for SCAM to have access to SM?
Martin+1 for me
Steve Killehas joined
nyco+1 of course, I add the SCAM should be responsible for those accounts
MartinArc, MattJ, votes?
GuusMartin, in the interest of time: could you quickly do the member confirmation, for the record?
Guusshould be a formality
Martin3.1.3) Does board approve Daniel Gultsch as a member of SCAM?
MartinOK, approved. Next:
Martin3.1.4) Does board approve Nicolas Vérité as a member of the SCAM?
nycoit hurts, voting for myself
MartinOK, approved. NExt:
Martin3.1.5) Does board approve Guus der Kinderen as the team leader of SCAM?
MattJI think a mailing list is ok (because we don't have one suitable already), but probably this MUC would suffice (and has more people active in it)
Guus(Thank you for pushing all my questions through. The SCAM trello card can be archived now)
MartinSorry it took so long Guus, glad we got there in the end.
nycogotta go as well
MartinMattJ: Do you have an opinion on the trademark license? Just needs your +1 to get it done.
dwdAs a point of order, it looks like the Board may not be quorate anymore. Although I cannot recall its quorum rules. (Also, if ralphm is actually about that'd solve the issue).
Guus(nyco voted on the last item, but is now gone)
MartinNyco did his +1 before disappeareing
MartinAnd we're not quorate any more, so I guess we should disband
nycosorry, bye! ;-)
dwdYes, indeed. Just noting this might curtail the meeting.
Ge0rGI'm okay with postponing my questions to next week.
Guussorry Ge0rG - mine are now out of the way though.
Ge0rGThis was a very intense and productive board meeting, so thanks to everybody
MartinGe0rG: If you send them to the members list, I can put them in Trello so they're ready, or are they in there somewhere already?
Ge0rGMartin: all in trello already
MartinSkipping 4) and 5) due to no people. And 6). 7) +1W
Ge0rGSPAM and trademark fees
GuusMartin: regular folk like us can add comments to cards, but not create cards. So, if board creates cards, others can fill in the blanks (not sure if everyone knows that). Could be helpful.
MartinGe0rG: Righto, yup, they're in there.
MartinGuus: Good call, dwd, can you mention that at the end of the minutes?
Guusthere might be some cards that can now be removed, by the way. I've left housekeeping comments.
dwdGe0rG, FWIW, I'd be rather against a SPAM team/SIG. I think it can be, and should be, conducted in an existing venue (operators?)
Guusok, I'm going to drive home now. Thanks again for pressing things through.
moparisthebestjust generally curious, is there anything stopping cisco from just changing their mind and revoking the license to use jabber to the xsf and any sublicensees ?
stefandxmi've a generic xml/xmpp question. about xml:lang; how is it suggested to use in iq stanzas. should the receiver respond with the same xml:lang or should if you make a "requested language" attribute have it explicitly added?
SamWhitedxml:lang is inherited, so you should just use whatever xml:lang they specified (probably on the stream, but maybe in the individual payload)
stefandxmyes, but what about the response
stefandxmie; "i want information about xyz and i want the information in language nnn"
stefandxmshould that be implicitly understood by the language used in the request or should it be added in the payload as a specific attribute/request ?
SamWhitedIt should be added in the payload or on the IQ itself if the one they sent doesn't match the stream.
SamWhitedXMPP is a bit odd in that there are two streams going on, one for input and one for output. xml:lang won't be shared between the two
stefandxmso should i add a "requested-lang" to the payload in the iq 'get'
stefandxmor should i make it implicitly / recommended that the responder uses the same lang as the request is marked
SamWhitedSo the flow is that you decode the IQ they sent you, check the xml:lang (which is probably inherited from the input stream, but might also be set on the IQ or payload itself), then check your output encoders xml:lang (probably set on the initial stream) and if it doesn't match set xml:lang on the IQ or payload before you send it
SamWhitedNo, the "requested lang" *is* the input's xml:lang value
SamWhitedyes, the second one
stefandxmmakes it easier for me :)
SamWhited(someone who actually knows XML should double check me on that, but I'm pretty sure everything in the http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace namespace gets inherited)
jonaswSamWhited, not sure about the namespace, but xml:lang for sure gets inherited
Ge0rGdwd: I don't care much where SPAM is handled, but there might be value in making it invite only
moparisthebestthe non-response is kind of what worries me, almost as if no one here knows anything about the jabber licensing scheme ... :)
moparisthebestthe point of xmpp for me is not to rely on the ongoing goodwill of some huge company, if we are indeed relying on the ongoing goodwill of cisco to use jabber, well, then I should just go back to google, hangouts?, or whatever it's called nowadays
SamWhitedmoparisthebest: I don't know anything about the jabber licensing scheme, but the question also didn't make sense to me. A license *is* the thing that stops Cisco from changing their mind, no? Isn't the whole point of having a license or an agreement or whatever so that it's not just their word?
SamWhitedAlso, it has nothing to do with using XMPP as that last thing suggests; it's just the term "Jabber".
moparisthebestSamWhited, the only document I ever saw was a vague promise with a big NOT A LEGAL OR BINDING DOCUMENT prefix, from jabber inc to xsf before cisco bought them
moparisthebestthis is what I'm asking about, *is* there a license, and what does it look like, what are the terms
jonaswmoparisthebest, maybe you should try to get a hold of stpeter
jonaswI think he’s most likely to have details and possibly even the related paperwork
moparisthebestthe license might say "cisco reserves the right to terminate this license at it's whim" for instance
moparisthebestand that's fine, but if only stpeter has it, that's a problem too
jonaswwe just need to get large enough that Cisco wouldn’t dare to because we can generate enough negative press for them by whining publicly about it :>
moparisthebestthen if stpeter gets hit by a bus and cisco decides to revoke it (or sue everyone), then what? :P
jonaswthe bus factor thing has been discussed in one of last months board meetings btw
moparisthebestSamWhited, true except there has been a push recently to standardize client language etc on the term 'jabber'
moparisthebestah yea all I saw before was the letter of intent
SamWhitedwhich was the first result in a Google search for "Jabber license agreement" or something to that effect.
jonaswanyone have a URL to the "Jabber Trademark Position Statement"?
jonaswah, it’s attached to the letter of intetn
edhelasdoes a pubsub node should return <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#publish'/> if the JID is not authorized to publish an item in that node (applies for all the other stuff in the disco#info) ?
moparisthebestjonasw, SamWhited do I read that wrong? https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_Enforcement_Agreement.pdf is expired because it's only good for 12 months from 2003 and if it terminates in any other way than transferring trademark to JSF, trademark goes back to JINC ?
moparisthebestI am not a lawyer and hate legal things grr
jonaswmoparisthebest, that document is only about enforcement of the trademark things I think
moparisthebestso we probably just care about https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf now, I guess
moparisthebesta couple questions about that, does it change anything legally that neither Jabber Inc nor JSF are a thing anymore (former purchased by cisco, latter now XSF) ?
jonaswno, it doesn’t
jonaswwith the purchase Jabber Inc merged into Cisco, which is why everybody is talking about Cisco instead of JINC now
jonaswthe XSF is simply a renamer of JSF afaict, so legally the XSF has fully inherited whatever the JSF did
moparisthebestWhat does point 5. mean? "No Right to Assign or Sublicense" ?
jonaswI don’t know.
jonaswI wonder whether there’s a follow-up document to that enforcement thing
moparisthebestand lastly after we answer that about #5
moparisthebestcisco can terminate this within 30 days if xsf doesn't enforce something
moparisthebestwhat are the chances of the xsf being able to enforce anything ever, let alone within 30 days?
moparisthebestthere is no lawyer on staff for sure, right?
jonaswmoparisthebest, take action and enforcing are two different things
jonaswgood job, gandi. searching for jabbercat.org domain name, it suggests gibberish.cat >.>
SouLAre you going to use jabbercat.org, jonasw?
jonaswSouL, I plan to
moparisthebestsounds like you should use jabber.cat instead jonasw :)
jonaswand cat has terms I don’t want to have to adhere to
moparisthebestsounds like the XSF needs to get to enforcing
moparisthebestoh really like what?
jonaswdomain names are fair use something
jonaswmoparisthebest, with .cat, you need to support the catalan culture/language in some way
jonaswpeople apparently simply put a google-translate-ed version of their page up
moparisthebestah ok, well, you'd support instant messaging in catalan right? :)
moparisthebestjonasw, are domain names fair use? because https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines.html 1.3 has a whole section about when they are not allowed
jonaswyeah, it describes what falls under "fair use" and what doesn’t ;)
SouLjonasw, as I said, if you want to use .cat I can really help with that! And they don't really care, so...
jonaswjabber.cat is also a jabber service apparently: https://jabber.cat/
jonaswso I don’t want to fight them :)
moparisthebestjonasw, did you notice the first word haha, funny
moparisthebestisn't that your library name-ish?
SouLAixò means "this" :)
jonaswhm, not really (aioxmpp vs Això)
moparisthebestshift it around a little aixòmpp and now you can register a .cat, no one will even notice
jonaswvanitasvitae, firefox refuses to connect to geekplace.eu (you linked that in your protoxep thread on standards@) with HTTPS due to SEC_ERROR_CERT_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM_DISABLED
vanitasvitaeHm, thats Flows site.
moparisthebestmy firefox is fine
SouLI wanted to get xmpp.cat but it was taken already
jonaswmaybe those are my facist cipher settings ... I think I disabled RC4 or something
moparisthebestsee what ssllabs says shortly, it's scanning
moparisthebestoh I didn't think it did, that's annoying
moparisthebestyour problem from your error message is you disabled SHA512withRSA as a cert algorithm, or, if you don't have CACert as trusted, it's root cert is signed with MD5withRSA
jonaswwhatever it is
moparisthebestI hate to say it, but the site works with http too...
peterjonasw: To answer your question from the editor@ room, there is no successor to the trademark license enforcement agreement of May 2003. That's when we were transitioning from JSF/Jabber to XSF/XMPP (read the list archives, someone called me Hitler!), and interest in registering anything with the word JABBER™ in it had already waned. It's fascinating to me that this issue is still alive 14 years later. :-)
moparisthebestpeter, also from https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf what does point 5. mean "No Right to Assign or Sublicense" ?
moparisthebestI'm not a lawyer which is why I'd universally prefer something not trademarked like 'xmpp' than something I have to ask questions about like 'jabber' :(
jonaswpeter, I’m confused then. on what basis does the XSF operate according to the Exhibit A of the Letter of Intent, the text which has now become the usage guidelines on the website?
petermoparisthebest: that means the XSF can't assign its right to sublicense the mark to another organization.
moparisthebestthat makes sense I guess
peterjonasw: what's the URL for the letter of intent?
moparisthebestand hopefully it wasn't an 'assignment' to go JSF -> XSF ? :)
petermoparisthebest: no, that wasn't assignment, just a legal name change for the organization
jonasw(that text I am talking about (Exhibit A there) is the Jabber Trademark Position Statement, which I couldn’t find elsewhere; it is referenced as basis in the Enforcement Agreement)
jonaswalso, wtf, that mailing list thread from back then
peterjonasw: I'm confused by your confusion. :-) Could you explain your concern a bit more?
jonaswpeter, I’m still trying to find the legal documents which give the XSF the permission to sublicense Jabber, as we were wondering if and under which circumstances Cisco could terminate our (the XSF’) right to sublicense
jonaswI can’t read that from the License Agreement, because the terms the XSF seems to be operating on (the part of the Exhibit A / Jabber Trademark Position Statement / Usage Guidelines on the website) is not referenced there
jonaswbut IANAL, you have been there back then and may know more
Steve Killehas left
jonaswalso, to lighten things up (quoting from that mail thread):
> He is an extremely patient and tireless driving force
> who deserves a great deal of recognition. Shame on you for your lack of
That is my perception, and I’ll use this opportunity to say Thanks for that.
peterAw, thanks. :-)
peterjonasw: BTW are you a native speaker of English? If not (and even if you are!), these legal documents can be difficult to understand.
moparisthebestI'm a native english speaker and still have problems groking lawyer-speak :)
jonaswpeter, no I’m not :(
jonasw(the issue with legalese in any language is of course that you often don’t know you didn’t understand it :()
jonaswstill I’d expect some document which defines the guidelines under which the XSF can sublicense (but I may be wrong), but there doesn’t seem to be one if the Enforcement Agreement didn’t have a successor and expired (like I read it) after 12 months.
moparisthebestthe enforcement agreement he is talking about is https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_Enforcement_Agreement.pdf
moparisthebestand I also read that it expired after 12 months
peterSo, a letter of intent is just that - a statement of principles and intention to work together toward something (in this case, an actual agreement regarding the trademark). At that time, there was quite a bit of controversy in the community about Jabber Inc., a drive to change the name to XMPP, and so on. The letter of intent was communicated to the community in late 2002, and as a result we developed the actual license agreement in March of 2003, and following that the enforcement agreement in May of 2003, see http://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_Enforcement_Agreement.pdf
moparisthebestbut that expired in may of 2004 right?
peterThere was supposed to be a 12-month "trial period" and then a discussion about potentially transferring the trademark to the XSF. Everyone got busy with standardization of XMPP at the IETF and with business as usual at Jabber Inc. I seem to recall that we addressed this a bit later on. Let me go AFK for a few minutes and look in the physical files, which are in my home office here. brb
jonaswthank you for your effort, peter :)
moparisthebestman he really is the best, no one else would get up from a desk and thumb through files :)
peterOK, so I don't see it in my physical files. I'll need to check the email history.
peterMy personal email history does not reveal anything, either. I do have a recollection that we addressed this 12-month topic at one point, but it was a long time ago. I might need to look at the archives of the board@ list.
peterOh, but we decided not to have archives for the board@ list. :(
jonaswsure? the mailman claims it is members only
GuusDon't we have any at all, or perhaps no public ones?
jonaswyou don’t find them at /pipermail/board, but at /mailman/private/board
peterI have admin privs on all the lists and I just checked.
peterThe Board Archives
Currently, there are no archives.
jonaswso for all we know the XSF currently does not have any authority over the Jabber™ whatsoever?
peterI can ssh to the machine and poke around.
peterjonasw: the XSF has authority, just not completely *documented* authority.
peterI've been in communication about various trademark issues with JINC legal counsel and Cisco legal departments before JINC was acquired, after JINC was acquired, and after I left Cisco. There has never been any question that the XSF has continued authority to sublicense use of the JABBER mark.
peterAnd I made sure that this was specifically re-affirmed when Jabber Inc. was acquired by Cisco in 2008.
peterWe just don't have a good paper trail on things after 2003.
moparisthebestpeter, just recently there has been a bit of a push to revive 'jabber', and I'm more concerned if you get hit by a bus and cisco turns evil, they could probably just pull it?
moparisthebestat least if there is no paperwork
peterI can ask my contacts at Cisco legal if they have any additional paperwork.
moparisthebesteven now I'd guess recollections wouldn't hold up in court
peterGuus: I've always been the keeper of the paperwork.
peterI'd be more worried about the bus factor than "just pulling it".
peterAfter all, Cisco's (and before that Jabber Inc.'s) actual *behavior* since 2003 shows a continuous recognition that the JSF/XSF has the right to sublicense use of the mark.
peterHowever, it would be a good thing for me to reach out to my contacts in Cisco legal because (a) people come and go (b) the new people don't necessarily know (c) maybe they have copies of something I don't have.
moparisthebestthat's true I think they do heavily consider past, uh, actions/behavior
Ge0rGI'm slightly worried that Cisco legal will contact "the XSF" with a 30 day deadline to handle some specific case of trademark misuse, and that letter won't arrive in time (or board won't meet in time) and we will lose our sub-license.
peterGe0rG: Thanks for your concern. When I reach out to Cisco legal, I will mention the desirability of having a backup person to contact in case I get hit by a bus.
Guus(also, we'd be bummed for other than trademark reasons, Peter)
moparisthebestthanks for clarifying Guus :)
Guustrying to spread the love ;)
Guuspeter, if you have time for another, although more trivial, issue: according to Raja, you and someone else were involved with creating the xmpp logo.
GuusI've asked him about that weird orange bit that continues to bug me. He is going to check his original designs, but was confident that it wasn't him that designed it like that. But, from what I gather, the design was a team effort of sorts