XSF Discussion - 2017-11-25

  1. Syndace

    So, starting off a topic that might be even worse than banning someone: Why is the discussion about omemo completely silent? I remember a few weeks (months?) ago someone wrote a mail asking about a technical change in the protocol to move from a signal-only technique to some wide-spread alternative and I was really hyped to contribute to this discussion but then nobody replied and the thread just died. So what's the thing about omemo? Why is there no heated discussion? I see two pull requests in the xsf repo just gathering dust.

  2. Syndace

    Oh I should add I have'nt read the chats in about two weeks, I may have missed something recently.

  3. Flow

    What Holger said. Besides Zinids choice of words, I did not notice him insulting someone.

  4. Flow

    Syndace, I guess there current OMEMO implementations are happy with they way they are

  5. Flow

    *the current

  6. Flow

    At least I have no incentive to work on an OMEMO-NEXT which just changes a crypto primitive for another one, when I think the current primitive is perfectly fine for all use cases.

  7. Steve Kille

    I thought that Ralph made a good call here

  8. Syndace

    Huh, that answer is not satisfying. The current stadard just tells people to use lib signal without having any actual alternative or even knowing the insides of the protocol. I thought the goal was to move away from libsignal asap, as it is GPL3'd and not maintained by us. If we ever decide to change something about omemo that does not comply to the way lib signal currently works we have a lot of trouble.

  9. Flow

    Steve Kille, I think the ban was at least borderline. Asking someone to be polite, sure. But otherwhise people could just "/ignore Zinid"

  10. ralphm

    I don't understand. There's a difference between a protocol and a library in terms of licensing.

  11. ralphm

    Flow: FWIW, I already lifted the ban

  12. Flow

    Syndace, That is why we had Andy's PR which was an attempt to move away from "protobufs as libsignal does them" towards "those are the fields and this is how we put them into XML"

  13. ralphm

    If he keeps it up, though, I'll waste not so many words as yesterday.

  14. Flow

    ralphm, yeah, there is a difference between a protocol and a library in terms of license, but the fact that all libsignal impls are GPL'ed was brought up again and again

  15. Flow

    it was especially XEdDSA which is part of libsignal

  16. ralphm

    Sure. So either someone does a clean room implementation with a different license, or something new happens. This is nothing new?

  17. Flow


  18. Flow

    ralphm, yeah, but why make something new if XEdDSA is an open specification

  19. ralphm

    We've marked specifications as 'historical' instead of 'standard' before for reasons like that.

  20. ralphm

    Flow: I agree. But then the only obstacle is, well, doing something?

  21. Flow

    ralphm, I'm sorry, only had my first cup of coffee, I can't follow

  22. Syndace

    Flow, not something new but something that is included in 90% of all crypto-libraried you can find in the wil

  23. Syndace


  24. Syndace

    instead of something that does the same and has just one single implementation out there

  25. Flow

    Syndace, there are multiple

  26. ralphm

    Flow: my point is that a library license is not necessarily interesting for defining a protocol. It might be for adoption, though. If someone cares enough, that problem goes away. If people just keep complaining instead, it doesn't.

  27. Flow

    ralphm, I think you are saying what I've been saying the whole time

  28. ralphm

    I happy to be in violent agreement.

  29. ralphm


  30. Syndace

    Flow, are you sure it's not all just ports of the singal implementation? I'm having a hard time finding another one on google.

  31. Flow

    But unfortunately, the unwritten (?) "there can only be once experimental XEP for $foo" philosophy has stopped the effort to standardize OMEMO based on the open signal specifications

  32. Flow

    Syndace, it's still multiple implementations, no?

  33. daniel

    Syndace: do you have stakes in this? Do you maintain a client or something? If so implement something, spec something and propose this

  34. daniel

    In my experience change does come from discussing things to dead but from implementing and specing it out

  35. daniel


  36. Flow

    "change does come from discussing things", hehe if that where true we had a long of change in XMPP-land ;)

  37. Flow

    yeah, but daniel is essentialy right, to many specs, and that includes MIX, make to much spec progress without an accompaning impl

  38. daniel

    *cough* OK

  39. daniel


  40. daniel

    Dann it i can't type. I need coffee

  41. ralphm

    Flow: I don't recall such a policy. We've had multiple competing experimentals at a time before.

  42. Flow

    daniel, hmm, well but I think the basics of OX are far less complex than e.g. MIX or OMEMO

  43. Syndace

    daniel, agreed, altough one of the pr's already includes the change I'm proposing. So what do you all think: If I publish a library which does omemo encryption without xeddsa first and THEN try to start the discussion again, will it change things and be more likely to actually move away from libsignal?

  44. Flow

    and there are at least two prototypcial impls I'm aware of

  45. ralphm

    in fact most of the current building blocks have had multiple different proposals. Disco (Browse, Agents), PubSub, Jingle (SI).

  46. Flow

    but yes, more OX impls for the greater good!

  47. ralphm

    Usually the driving force should be _running code_

  48. Flow

    ralphm, then we can continue working on what Andy proposed?

  49. ralphm

    I don't think anyone can (or would want to) block working on competing standards.

  50. ralphm

    For interop, though, eventually, one should prevail.

  51. Flow

    Cool, then we could also start work on a MIX competitor

  52. daniel

    > daniel, hmm, well but I think the basics of OX are far less complex than e.g. MIX or OMEMO Sure. I just meant to say it's not implemented

  53. Flow hands daniel a virtual cop of coffee while he gets a physical one for himself

  54. ralphm

    You wouldn't be the first. The Erlang Solutions people have worked on MUC Light. I personally think that MIX is the way to go to eventually.

  55. ralphm

    MIX is of course comprehensive and there are a lot of moving parts before getting there.

  56. ralphm

    Making more focused protocols is always easier.

  57. Flow

    ralphm, yep, the MUC light situation come to my mind too. And I agree that ideally everyone would be working on the same thing. But for such a crucial building block as persisent groupchat, I wouldn't want to bet all my money on a single horse

  58. ralphm

    The thing I like about MIX most are a) relating occupants on bare JIDs, b) persistent occupancy, even if not online, c) extensible orthogonal streams

  59. daniel

    Flow, i'm personally came to believe that forward secrecy is totally unnecessary and kills UX and I would prefer something like OX actually. but I don't want to be the single driving force for something like this again. plus I lot of the change i'm trying to push with OMEMO (like proper access control on pubsub) will benefit OX as well.

  60. ralphm

    My pet peeve about, for example, Slack, is integrations messing up conversation in the same channel. With MIX an integration would be on a separate node, and a client can make choices on how to represent such streams in a different way.

  61. Flow

    daniel, good to hear that you would probably be interessted in OX for Conversations. I plan to do a OX sprint around march next year (our research project has an evaluation in january, so most people are panicing and there is a lots of stuff to do until then)

  62. Flow

    daniel, lovetux also wanted to improve they way keys are announced and stored

  63. daniel

    in OX?

  64. Flow


  65. daniel

    with a meta note?

  66. Flow

    so waiting after that has been spec'ed may be a good idea

  67. Flow


  68. Flow

    (given we talk about the same meta node approach)

  69. daniel

    the real issue by the way is that we have to retrieve all pep notifications again and again on every login (instead of them landing in MAM for example) - meta or not that a lot of traffic

  70. Flow

    daniel, you can configure PubSub nodes to not do that

  71. daniel

    a login on my personal device with tens of people having avatars and omemo is really really expensive these days

  72. Flow

    (see my discussion in here with lovetux a few days ago)

  73. daniel

    Flow, will they be sent instead (and sent to mam) even if i'm offline?

  74. daniel

    because just not receiving updates at all doesn't solve the situation

  75. ralphm

    PEP is just a profile of PubSub with very specific use cases. If you want other behaviour for nodes-on-user-accounts, that's totally fine.

  76. ralphm

    And of course they can integrate just fine with MAM

  77. daniel

    ralphm, a) i know b) tell that to the prosody developers :)

  78. ralphm

    MattJ: ^

  79. ralphm


  80. Flow

    daniel, you want to search xep60 for pubsub#send_last_published_ite

  81. Flow


  82. Flow

    daniel, I think so

  83. Flow

    (not sure about MAM, probably depends on the MAM service impl)

  84. daniel

    in any case; making pep a proper pubsub child (in the implementations) and being able to configure something like access control and send_last_published_item and also storing them in MAM is some good preperation that OX, OMEMO and OMEMO-NEXT can all benefit from

  85. daniel

    thus far we haven't even managed to make publish_options work on all servers

  86. daniel

    at least we are getting there with ejabberd now

  87. Flow

    daniel, right but thats a spec vs impl thing

  88. Flow

    the only thing we can do from the spec side is to ensure that the required baseline profile is as minimalistic as possible

  89. Flow

    (looking at you MIX)

  90. Flow

    and that baseline should be ideally able to fullfil >85% of the use cases

  91. daniel

    Flow, yes sure. but I like to implement things in Conversations that will actually work so I need server side implementations

  92. daniel

    besides having access control would allow us to move bookmarks into pep and get other clients notified if one client changes things. imagine how great that would be if we could sync bookmarks across multiple devices in the year 2018

  93. Flow

    daniel, absolutely comprehensible

  94. Flow just noticed that at next Summit/FOSDEM, drumpf will be president for >1 y

  95. zinid

    > I think the ban was at least borderline you cannot ban anyone in XMPP :)

  96. zinid

    and ignoring is not implemented, so, deal with it ;)

  97. Flow

    zinid, peozio supports /ignore (although I've never used it, and don't plan to do so)

  98. zinid

    Flow: nice

  99. fippo

    is there a new presence subscription spam wave?

  100. ralphm

    I did get a bunch over last week

  101. Ge0rG

    fippo: ongoing right now

  102. Alex

    fippo: yes, denied already 20 subscriptions today

  103. fippo

    word + three digits as username... now sure if there is a pattern in the resource but i would not expect any

  104. fippo

    fun :-/

  105. Alex

    yes, same pattern here

  106. Guus

    I appear to be on a different list then

  107. MattJ

    Ge0rG, master of all things XMPP 2.0, should headline/normal messages be archived?

  108. Ge0rG

    MattJ: yes/no in my current opinion, but this is subject to other factors I haven't thought through yet

  109. MattJ

    Oh really

  110. MattJ

    I'd have thought yes/no if both would be different

  111. MattJ

    headline is defined as transient, no offline storage, etc.

  112. MattJ


  113. Ge0rG

    MattJ: right, no/yes

  114. MattJ


  115. MattJ

    Ok, we both made the same typo, that's ok then :)

  116. Ge0rG

    MattJ: but it would make sense to decouple persistence from type

  117. daniel

    wouldn't the full jid / bare jid approach work as well?

  118. Ge0rG

    daniel: yes, it's my preferred approach

  119. MattJ

    Mine too

  120. jonasw

    Ge0rG, I heard you on council now ;-)

  121. MattJ

    But until we can find a sensible transition path to full/bare, I'm sadly living in reality

  122. Ge0rG

    I've also updated my slide deck with the rfc routing rules, as those are complex enough already

  123. daniel

    MattJ, if that's about 0313 i wouldn't touch the rules regarding headline

  124. daniel

    for now at least

  125. jonasw

    could we change 0313 to the full/bare thing sensibly after it moving to draft?

  126. jonasw

    it is based on message types currently, I think that could be considered as a breaking change

  127. Ge0rG

    MattJ: can we change the MAM response message type to headline please?

  128. MattJ

    But the MAM responses are sent to the full JID :)

  129. Ge0rG


  130. MattJ

    jonasw, don't worry, I'm not planning on coding any rules into XEP-0313 (which is currently intentionally very light on rules)

  131. MattJ

    other than I think we all agree that groupchat shouldn't be archived

  132. Ge0rG

    But there are servers in the reality you just mentioned that will reroute full JID normal messages

  133. MattJ

    which are those?

  134. MattJ

    because I thought that was in the spec

  135. Ge0rG

    MattJ: ejabberd, because it broke message delivery for Gajim users

  136. MattJ

    6120 says: "If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form <localpart@domainpart/resourcepart> and the user exists but there is no connected resource that exactly matches the full JID, the stanza SHOULD be processed as if the JID were of the form <localpart@domainpart>"

  137. Ge0rG

    I'm sure we are going to experience funny effects with MAM MUC queries on ejabberd

  138. Ge0rG

    Ge0rG [21:49]: > So I've updated the "XMPP broken" presentation slides, including a screenshot. https://op-co.de/tmp/whats-wrong-with-xmpp-2017.pdf MattJ: ^

  139. MattJ

    Ok, this section is more detailed: https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-fulljid

  140. Ge0rG

    There is a table of the relevant cases

  141. MattJ

    What's the case for MAM results having type="headline"?

  142. Ge0rG

    MattJ: the ejabberd inconsistency and also that headline messages are ephemeral

  143. MattJ

    I'm not updating the spec for an implementation bug

  144. MattJ

    and I agree that in hindsight, headline has cleaner semantics for these messages, but is it worth another namespace bump?

  145. daniel

    MattJ, are you going to accept my PR so jonasw can merge it before we are getting caught up in trying to fix $everything?

  146. MattJ

    daniel, yes, sure

  147. jonasw


  148. daniel

    MattJ, Ge0rG maybe put the headline thing on a todo in case we will do another ns bump anyway for some other reason

  149. MattJ

    FWIW I started this conversation with an innocent question that is not at all related to updating XEP-0313

  150. jonasw

    what about todo lists in XML comments in the xep files themselves?

  151. MattJ

    I'm working on code at the moment

  152. MattJ

    jonasw, that happens to be what I do locally :)

  153. jonasw


  154. daniel

    regarding the headline thing; I would like to have a situation where pep publish notifitcation messages can go to mam but the resend on login messages don't

  155. daniel

    i'm not sure if they are addressed to bare-jid / full-jid respectively

  156. Ge0rG

    MattJ, daniel: I'm not sure we really need a namespace bump for the type change. Most client implementations don't care about it anyway

  157. MattJ

    Most? What about the ones that do? :)

  158. Ge0rG

    MattJ: those haven't implemented MAM anyway yet? 😁

  159. Ge0rG

    Okay, I have no idea which clients explicitly filter on message type.

  160. Ge0rG

    And you really don't want MAM responses to end up in offline storage, do you?

  161. MattJ

    No, but as I understand it, that will only happen on ejabberd due to a bug

  162. MattJ

    and even then, it's not the end of the world

  163. MattJ

    If the client uses queryid, it won't get confused, and will just ignore them

  164. Ge0rG

    MattJ: a server implementation can store incoming normal messages to offline as well

  165. MattJ

    That's not what your table says

  166. MattJ

    6121: "For a message stanza of type "normal", "groupchat", or "headline", the server MUST either (a) silently ignore the stanza or (b) return an error stanza to the sender, which SHOULD be <service-unavailable/>. "

  167. daniel

    > regarding the headline thing; I would like to have a situation where pep publish notifitcation messages can go to mam but the resend on login messages don't maybe that's more of an argument to make pubsub publish messages type=normal maybe headline should never be stored anywhere. else we will loose the difference between normal and headline

  168. Ge0rG

    MattJ: what does prosody do?

  169. Ge0rG

    MattJ: oh, you are right

  170. Ge0rG

    I think we need a new message type 'system'...

  171. MattJ

    Ge0rG, let's not talk about Prosody :)

  172. MattJ

    (looks like it treats chat/normal the same here)

  173. Ge0rG

    Though I must admit it probably won't happen in this universe

  174. MattJ

    and in my head, they were equivalent, and only headline was not stored

  175. Ge0rG

    MattJ: I'm already glad I took the time to make this table

  176. MattJ

    But it's a trivial fix

  177. MattJ

    Me too

  178. Ge0rG

    MattJ: it will break users' expectations

  179. MattJ

    No, because no users use type=normal :)

  180. MattJ

    and if they do, they have expectations of it breaking

  181. Ge0rG

    MattJ: you can ask Holger, he fixed it as well, and had to revert almost immediately

  182. Ge0rG

    MattJ: users have no idea about message type

  183. Ge0rG

    MattJ: all they care about is that suddenly prosody broke message delivery

  184. MattJ

    What clients other that Gajim and Psi allow you to send type=normal?

  185. MattJ


  186. Ge0rG

    MattJ: I have no idea

  187. goffi

    SàT allows it and use normal messages

  188. MattJ

    So three clients so far. How many of those will send type=normal to the full JID?

  189. goffi

    (haven't read the whole log, just the last few lines, so I'm not sure what this is about)

  190. MattJ

    goffi, the spec says that type=normal to a full JID should not be stored as an offline message

  191. MattJ

    if the resource is offline

  192. goffi

    it's technically possible to send to full jid from SàT using command line, but I don't think there is a reason why a user would do that.

  193. Ge0rG

    MattJ: gajim was accidentally sending normal to full JID.

  194. goffi

    but I though only headline message were not stored offline?

  195. goffi


  196. MattJ

    goffi, "I don't think there is a reason why a user would do that" - https://xkcd.com/1172/

  197. MattJ

    goffi, I thought that too (and Prosody does that)

  198. MattJ

    But seems we were all wrong

  199. MattJ

    Ge0rG, ok, surely that must be in the case that the recipient is online?

  200. MattJ

    Ge0rG, don't tell me it sends to a full JID when they are offline

  201. MattJ

    -> I'm curious what Holger fixed, and how it was noticed so quickly

  202. goffi

    MattJ: forgot this one :D

  203. goffi

    for the record there is an experimental plugin in SàT which allows to send and read messages through an email client (MUA), and this is case message of type "normal" can be filtered to be only readable from email client.

  204. Ge0rG

    MattJ: it doesn't matter whether the user is offline at the time of sending because RACE CONDITIONS!!!1!

  205. MattJ

    Ge0rG, yes, but this race condition wouldn't happen that often

  206. Ge0rG

    MattJ: please ask Holger for the details, and maybe also lovetox

  207. Ge0rG

    MattJ: I know Holger linked to the revert commit in here, some weeks ago, but I'm on my mobile now, and haven't implemented search yet

  208. MattJ


  209. Flow

    why is it so important what MAM services store, isn't it more important what they return on a query?

  210. MattJ

    They can't return stuff they don't store

  211. MattJ

    and there is a cost to storing *everything*

  212. Flow

    I can see that groupchat messages should not be returned on normal client catch-up, but does that automatically mean xep313 must forbid services storing them?

  213. MattJ

    Given that nowadays we're into replicating everything to every client, the optimal path is that everything we want on every client is what is stored

  214. MattJ

    and what we don't want on every client is not stored

  215. Flow

    MattJ, of course there is a cost, but I want total freedom for MAM services regarding what to store

  216. MattJ

    Then what you're asking is for the MAM service to be able to store stuff that is "hidden" from a default query

  217. MattJ

    I think that would be fine

  218. Ge0rG

    Flow: that's exactly what I wrote to the ML yesterday

  219. Flow

    MattJ, not strictly, but yes

  220. Flow

    I believe the construction site should be the MAM query mechanism, not the archiving rules

  221. Flow

    Although I also don't like the current MAM version to require services to store groupchat messages

  222. Ge0rG

    I'm not sure if the wording in the XEP speaks about what's stored or what's returned, but there's some room for a xep that stores more and provides an extension to query for that

  223. Ge0rG

    Unless we can make MUC work on an account, kind of like MIX light, there is no way for account local MUC archives

  224. MattJ

    Flow, the current version doesn't require that

  225. MattJ

    Oh wait, it does

  226. Flow

    MattJ, A server SHOULD also include messages of type 'groupchat' that have a <body>

  227. MattJ

    Yeah, sorry, that's what we discussed on the list

  228. MattJ

    I'm still surprised at that text :)

  229. Flow

    MattJ, no worries, $stuff's complicated

  230. MattJ

    Daniel made a PR to fix it anyway

  231. MattJ

    so it'll be gone soon

  232. Flow

    MattJ, IIRC Daniel PR no requires MAM services to not store groupchat messages

  233. Flow

    which is also not good IMHO

  234. MattJ


  235. Flow


  236. Flow

    But you should now best, because you just approved it ;)

  237. Flow


  238. MattJ

    I think what you want is sensible, but shouldn't be part of the default query

  239. Flow

    A server SHOULD NOT include messages of type 'groupchat' in a user archive

  240. MattJ

    so in a sense the spec should separate the idea of storing something, from returning it in a query

  241. Flow

    MattJ, exactly

  242. MattJ

    I'm totally fine with that, just figuring out how to cleanly word that will be tricky

  243. Ge0rG

    MattJ: yes please

  244. MattJ

    PRs welcome

  245. MattJ

    I'm currently working on restructuring Prosody's message delivery code to make XMPP 2.0 stuff easier (this is the ongoing side project that includes the rewrite of mod_smacks)

  246. MattJ

    I'm fed up of missing messages from my wife because my phone battery was flat, and they got "successfully delivered" to poezio, which is online 24/7

  247. marc

    What's XMPP 2.0?

  248. MattJ

    Pretend I said something else

  249. Ge0rG

    MattJ: and this is why I'm using a separate account for my family communication for many years already

  250. jonasw

    marc, "Message Routing 2.0" is probably a more accurate term

  251. jonasw

    marc, there are a few issues with how XMPP message routing behaves with multiple clients online on the same account at different or the same times

  252. MattJ

    jonasw, but what a mouthful. We need a marketing term :)

  253. jonasw

    MattJ, sure, but we don’t need to market to marc, I think :)

  254. marc

    jonasw, ah okay, is this a XEP?

  255. jonasw

    marc, not yet

  256. jonasw

    marc, there’s some info on the wiki: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_2.0

  257. jonasw

    (which may be slightly outdated)

  258. jonasw

    and also a bunch of discussion on the mailinglist

  259. Ge0rG

    And my slide deck

  260. MattJ

    marc, most comprehensive source of information is: https://op-co.de/tmp/whats-wrong-with-xmpp-2017.pdf

  261. Ge0rG

    MattJ: thanks

  262. marc

    jonasw, MattJ thanks!

  263. MattJ

    marc, "XMPP 2.0" isn't anything formal, and doesn't exist. We're just doing some review of where we are, and where we are going, and what feasible changes we can make to the protocol to make everyone's lives easier

  264. MattJ

    Back when XMPP/Jabber began, most of the popular IM networks would disconnect you from one location if you logged on from a new location

  265. MattJ

    XMPP supported multiple connections long before everyone had smartphones, laptops, etc.

  266. MattJ

    and back then, it aimed to do clever things like figure out which device you wanted to receive messages on

  267. zinid

    Now this is not required and even detrimental

  268. marc

    MattJ, I understand and I'll read the slides etc. to be up-to-date, thanks :)

  269. Flow

    MattJ, I always wonder if that priority based routing was clever even 10 years ago

  270. Flow

    Or what that rationale for that back then was

  271. Ge0rG

    marc: ping me if you have questions about the slides. I gave them to a nerd friend recently and had to realize they are not meant for people without really deep understanding of XMPP

  272. marc

    Ge0rG, will do :)

  273. ralphm

    Flow: the idea back then didn't take into account ubiquitous mobile devices

  274. ralphm

    It was assumed that whole you might have multiple simultaneous connections, you'd always want messages to arrive in one of them, your 'current' one.

  275. ralphm


  276. Ge0rG

    And thus "most avaliable non negative presence" was born.

  277. ralphm

    The assumption now is that you basically want chat-like messages to arrive on all devices, with history, and proper distributed read markers

  278. jonasw

    "and it was good" no wait

  279. ralphm

    So yeah priority is mostly useless now

  280. Kev

    I don't think the priority-based routing was actually a good idea, but I'm sure it seemed one at the time, a decade before that use case came about.

  281. ralphm

    I'm still not sure about aggregate availability / show presence.

  282. Kev

    In which way? I think that individual devices having a different status message is unhelpful for most use cases these days.

  283. ralphm

    I could imagine using priority for that exclusively

  284. Kev

    To the point that I'm sorely tempted we (non-formally) deprecate status messages, and just shove something in PEP.

  285. ralphm

    Sure, Slack has per account status and 'snooze'

  286. ralphm

    Making it explicit that way seems the way to go

  287. Kev

    Aggregating status locally is easy enough, I think.

  288. Kev

    But messages are harder.

  289. Kev

    I don't think it's a hardship for a receiving client to see two auto-away, one available, so mark the contact as available.

  290. Kev

    (Although it's not how we'd design it if we were starting again)

  291. daniel

    > contracts shouldn't be able to choose what happens to my archive Kev: I'm not really sure how this would look like. Even if we change to a full jid / bare jid approach it's ultimately up to the sender to make that decision

  292. Ge0rG

    I'm also in favor of aggregate presence status, but we don't need to throw everything over for that

  293. Kev

    daniel: I'd like to make a fuller response Monday, I just noticed the PR and wanted to leave a holding message to stop it getting merged until I'm working again after the weekend.

  294. ralphm

    I think we should be precise and not talk about 'presence'

  295. Ge0rG

    ralphm: feel free to provide a better glossary

  296. ralphm

    Rather about availability-presence, user status and such

  297. Kev

    But, basically, telling an archive server that someone sending me a message gets to override the rules of my server policy has to be obeyed isn't helpful in most cases. I'm happy with (more loosely than you're doing) excluding groupchat from default access, but the <store/> thing needs more care.

  298. Kev

    More Monday :)

  299. ralphm

    Availability still has use cases, even beyond chat

  300. Kev

    Ge0rG: I would still like to work with you on XEPpifying these thoughts (although I'll do it on my own if you're still not keen).

  301. ralphm

    Slack status is much like user mood and user activity conflated

  302. Ge0rG

    Kev: I'm not opposed, I just still think it's too early

  303. Kev

    ralphm: And I think more matches what the typical use case needs.

  304. ralphm

    I.e. you pick an emoji and a status message to go with it

  305. ralphm


  306. Kev

    But Slack still does presence.

  307. Kev


  308. Ge0rG

    There is a good case for dnd at least

  309. Kev

    I think in XMPP we could easily codify something here that makes slackishness work, along with other use cases, without needing to throw baby out with the bathwater.

  310. ralphm

    But do note that Slack also has binary availability (green or dark icon) as well as snooze indicator. The latter is per account, and I assume the former is simply a logical or.

  311. Kev

    I think <status/> is going to be a victim in this.

  312. ralphm

    Indeed, as well as show

  313. Kev

    I think we keep show.

  314. Ge0rG

    But but but but I want custom text status, or at least Emoji

  315. Kev

    But I think we codify some rules of how to do a trinary logical or on it.

  316. ralphm

    Ge0rG: please read again

  317. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, but I don't think <status/> is fit for that per-account use. I think we PEP that.

  318. ralphm

    We'd move this to a PEP nice

  319. ralphm


  320. ralphm

    Like User Mood and User Activity XEPs

  321. Kev

    And probably replacing both, if we're honest.

  322. ralphm


  323. Kev

    Well, or combining both.

  324. Ge0rG

    Kev: persistent or ephemeral pep?

  325. Kev

    If we changed User Mood into an emoji :D

  326. ralphm

    Without predefined items

  327. Kev

    Ge0rG: persistent.

  328. ralphm

    Even though they are extensible

  329. Ge0rG

    Kev: I think I still have some junk in my pep (different account) from a client that I tried some years ago

  330. Kev

    I've added to my list of things I need to cover in the xmpp2.0-not-called-xmpp2.0 Informational XEP.

  331. Kev

    My intention is to write a XEP summarising Ge0rG's slidedeck, together with our current best guess on how we'll approach solving it.

  332. Kev

    Mostly so that we have this tracked in some way that the XSF's process understands.

  333. Kev

    Right, I'm going back to hiding my XMPP and Mail clients again :)

  334. Kev


  335. ralphm

    I guess we can fill those summit days easily

  336. moparisthebest

    Does anyone use haproxy for xep368 or anything using alpn?

  337. xram

    moparisthebest: https://blog.onefellow.com/post/76702632637/haproxy-and-ejabberd

  338. xram

    without alpn though

  339. moparisthebest

    Yea mainly wondering if it can multiplex on alpn without terminating TLS or not

  340. moparisthebest

    Guy in conversations muc is trying to figure it out

  341. zinid

    not sure what the problem is, there is tons of info in google

  342. zinid

    for example: https://www.haproxy.com/documentation/aloha/7-0/haproxy/tls/

  343. moparisthebest

    That's about terminating TLS though, he got it working doing that https://pastebin.ca/3939980

  344. moparisthebest

    It's just not necessary