Flowjonasw, i've just discussed with ge0rg that entity caps would need a push mechanism for the service's ver attribute because the server may enable a feature dynamically at runtime. I'm not sure if this is something for xep390
suzyohas joined
Ge0rGthere is the implicit assumption that stream features / server caps don't change over the lifetime of a connection.
Ge0rGI suppose the server could send a presence unavailable from the service domain, containing the caps hash.
Flowhmm, my first though was to use a message for the push
hanneshas joined
Ge0rGFlow: entity caps is using presence everywhere. If you have a presence listener anyway, it would just get reused
Flowgood point, but i'm not sure if this justifies
Flowreusing presence
Ge0rGWe could just invent a new nonza.
ZashWhut
Flowthat only causes trouble when using stream resumption
Flowor maybe not since the features are announced early
Ge0rG</s>
ZashFeatures are still things attached to potentially remote entities, right?
ZashSo you want notifications to be routable stanzas.
FlowZash, so you also think that the service should use an unavailable presence as xep115/390 push?
ZashFlow: Huh?
pep.Could this be used for stuff like pubsub services?
Guushas left
Flowpep, not really, a remote service doesn't know that you are using it, so we would need a way to register for caps updates
pep.I know edhelas was interested in having sth similar to caps for that
Flowwhich seems a little but to much for a problem that hasn't been a problem since xep115 exists
Ge0rGjust send out presence pushes to all entities that ever asked for your caps :P
FlowGe0rG, for all eternity?
pep.As querying a service with thousands if nodes can be quite heavy
ZashFlow: I'm probably missing tons of context here
Ge0rGwhile we are at it, there is no caching for disco#items.
FlowZash, I don't think so, it's really just "what if your service gets a new feature at runtime"
Ge0rGZash: context is: a client wants to cache its server's entity caps, but those can change when modules get (un)loaded
Flow(which isn't really a practical problem)
FlowGe0rG, like client's caching disco#items?
Zashdisco-sub!
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGFlow: there are rather static and more dynamic disco#items...
Ge0rGThe typical flow is:
1) query domain for disco#items
2) iterate over each item's disco#info
FlowGe0rG, true
Ge0rGmaybe adding the caps into disco#items would already prove sufficient, as we can't skip 1 anyway
suzyohas joined
ralphmhas joined
FlowGe0rG, that doesn't sound like a bad idea
Ge0rGI'm full of good ideas. Implementation is what matters :P
Flowonly problem is that xep30 has a "<item/> SHOULD be empty"
Ge0rGjust add a new attribute to item :P
Flowbut the schema!
Ge0rGunknown attributes must be ignored?
Flowsays who?
Flow(not saying that isn't what I'm doing)
Ge0rGgeneral consensus
marcGe0rG, I'm pondering if we should skip account creation on this XEP for simplicity and make an own XEP (with a reference to this one) later. What do you think?
pep.Depends on how strict you want your parser. I know often it helps fond bugs when you are
pep.find*
Ge0rGmarc: that's what I was telling you in the beginning :P
marcGe0rG, no, you had the idea to combine PARS and my account creation becaus they are similar :p
remkohas joined
Ge0rGmarc: if we skip account creation out, we can just rewrite PARS to be a server-side adhoc command triggered thing, and add the `ibr` flag to the spec for servers supporting that.
Ge0rGmarc: but honestly, I've seen multiple situations in the past where the account creation flow would make sense.
marcGe0rG, :D
marcOkay, let's keep it then?
Ge0rGmarc: I wouldn't even mind putting both use cases into PARS.
marchm, doesn't fit the name PARS IMO
marcat least account creation
remkohas left
Ge0rGmarc: good point.
Ge0rGmarc: I suppose renaming PARS into "Easy Onboarding" would be counter-productive. Some nerds already know what "PARS" stands for.
Ge0rGjonasw: being the editor, is there prior case law, or do you consider it a good idea to rename an XEP when its scope shifts?
KevI'd expect Council to be involved in the shifting of scope, at least.
KevOne can't really get Council to accept an Experimental XEP for one purpose, and then change the purpose of the XEP.
danielhas joined
Ge0rGKev: okay, so we have PARS. And we want to extend it to carry a flag that the token may also be used for IBR. And then we further want to extend it to allow "account sharing" where an admin sends a link to friends to easily onboard them.
Ge0rGThey are using the same wire format
Ge0rGAnd are all belonging to "Easy Onboarding"
KevThat doesn't seem to be particularly changing the scope much.
Ge0rGKev: it's not "Pre-Authenticated Roster Subscription" any more, but rather "Pre-Authenticated User Onboarding"
KevYeah.
Ge0rGso it's not changing the purpose, but still shifting the focus
KevThis isn't particularly ringing alarm bells for me.
pep.PARS -> PAUO, hmm
pep.I preferred the first name Ge0rG :p
Ge0rGpep.: me too. Will need to come up with a new catchy backronym first.
Martinhas joined
pep.And the discussion about caps ended
goffihas joined
Ge0rGmarc: so have you written down anything yesterday?
danielhas left
marcGe0rG, no, not anything. What's the plan now? New XEP, re-using PARS XEP?
Ge0rGmarc: I'm ambivalent about leaving account-creation in or out.
Ge0rGmarc: maybe a new "Easy Onboarding" XEP is better suited.
Ge0rGor maybe... dunno
Ge0rGlacks coffee
marcGe0rG, a new XEP for user invitation and account creation as is?
lskdjfhas joined
ralphmhas joined
Martinhas left
Martinhas joined
la|r|mahas joined
Ge0rGmarc: there are three user stories I see as relevant:
1) explicit account sharing --> uses PARS-style URI with token and custom IBR payload <xmpp://invitee@domain?register;preauth=XXX>
2) roster invitation with IBR to somebody without an account --> uses the IBR wire format from #1, server auto-enrosters user
3) roster invitation with IBR to somebody with existing account --> uses PARS as is
Ge0rG#2 and #3 share the <xmpp:inviter@domain?add;preauth=XXX;ibr> URI
Ge0rGwe could make three XEPs: PARS, a new XEP for account-sharing + the new IBR payload, a new "Easy Onboarding" XEP bringing them all together
Guushas left
Ge0rGor just two XEPs: PARS and a new one for everything else.
Ge0rGor stick everything into PARS, because there is so much overlap between #1 and #2 and between #2 and #3
Alexhas joined
marcGe0rG, I agree but I don't know what's the best solution regarding XEP(s) for it
danielhas left
danielhas joined
waqashas left
lumihas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
ralphmhas left
danielhas left
suzyohas joined
danielhas joined
goffihas left
Ge0rGFrom a symmetry perspective, #1 and PARS are similar to each other as they are building blocks that can be combined in #2
Ge0rGso it wouldn't make much sense to have PARS separate, but not IBR+
zinidhas left
Kevhas left
suzyohas joined
marcGe0rG: So, a new XEP for account creation and user invitation as already planned?
Ge0rGmarc: no
la|r|mahas left
Alexhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
Steve Killehas left
danielhas left
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Ge0rGhas joined
suzyohas left
lskdjfhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
goffihas joined
suzyohas joined
zinidhas left
valohas joined
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas joined
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
Alexhas joined
SouLhas left
la|r|mahas joined
la|r|mahas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Ge0rGmarc: after some more pondering I'd say we need exactly one new XEP.
Steve Killehas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Steve Killehas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
hanneshas left
hanneshas joined
Steve Killehas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
jerehas joined
hanneshas left
tim@boese-ban.dehas left
hanneshas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Holgerhas left
lumihas joined
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
marcGe0rG, and what's the content of this new XEP?
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGmarc: a description of the two use cases and how a receiving client should handle them, the wire protocol for IBR+token and a reference to PARS
marcGe0rG, two use cases = account creation & user invitation?
Ge0rGmarc: right
Ge0rGmarc: there is really no need to distinguish between #2 and #3 from yesterday's discussion
jerehas left
jerehas joined
jerehas left
marcGe0rG, -> no "ibr" parameter?
Ge0rGmarc:
account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX`
user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?roster;preauth=XXX;ibr`
marcGe0rG, wtf, we discussed 2h regarding the action parameter and you didn't like it and now you have "?roster"? :D
jjrhhas left
Ge0rGmarc:
account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX`
user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?;preauth=XXX;ibr`
la|r|mahas left
marc:D
marcAnd no "?;" please :)
Ge0rGmarc: for some reason I used ?roster in one place in 0379, but not in the other places.
Ge0rG?; = empty action, not to be confused with:
?: = elvis operator
marc"?;" doesn't make sense IMO, we discussed it already ;)
marcGe0rG, well, for PARS-only the "?roster" action makes sense, doesn't it?
marcNot not in combination with "ibr", I thought that's what came out last time we discussed the action parameter stuff
marcs/Not/But
Ge0rGmarc: generally speaking, the ?roster action doesn't make any sense, ever.
marcGe0rG, okay, you should update your XEP then
Ge0rGmarc: we should update 0147
Ge0rGexcept nobody cared about it two years ago.
marcGe0rG, I would mention server-side PARS in the new XEP and make a reference to the PARS XEP, okay?
marcFor server-side PARS the server returns the normal PARS URI
Ge0rGmarc: for server-side PARS, the server returns either a normal PARS URI or one with `ibr` flag.
Ge0rGI don't know if the ibr flag needs to have a value, though.
Ge0rGURI parsing is a art.
marcNot really :)
marcGe0rG, a value?
marcLike "ibr=" ?
Ge0rGmarc: like `ibr=1`
Ge0rGbecause an empty value is not much more than no value at all
marcNo
marcEmpty values are fine
marcSee action parameters :D
Ge0rGmarc: no, there is actually a problem here. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2 Only allows the query type (i.e. action) to be valueless
Ge0rGquery parameters need to have an "=" between key and value, albeit the value might be empty
Ge0rGfurhermore, xmpp://domain/ is invalid
marcOkay, that's all XMPP URI related :-/
marcBut that means we need an action type
marcAt least one "iquerytype"
marcWell, exactly one "iquerytype"
Ge0rGmarc: iquerytype may be empty, leading us back to ?;
marcThis URI definition is really shitty...
Ge0rGmarc: it never was designed for what we are doing with it now.
Ge0rGWe could have `xmpp:inviter@domain?preauth=XXX;ibr=YYY` but I don't want to add a second token for the sake of adding a second token.
Ge0rGespecially as other applications will want to append crpyto keys and then render everything as a QR code
marcYou forgot "?;"
marcUgly as hell...
danielhas joined
goffihas left
Ge0rGmarc: yeah, ?preauth is a violation already.
marcGe0rG, fix your XEP then :D
Ge0rGmarc: to what? `?;`?
marcYes :>
Ge0rGCan do, I suppose. Let's hope my parser won't crash on that
marcOr we change the RFC :D
Ge0rGMuhahaha!
Ge0rGSorry.
lumihas joined
Ge0rGhas left
la|r|mahas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
jjrhhas left
goffihas joined
Ge0rG> This document extends the "roster" URI action defined in XEP-0147 with a new key-value parameter named "preauth" to store the generated token.
So maybe it's action=roster after all?
Alexhas left
jjrhhas left
intosihas joined
moparisthebesthas left
Guushas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
goffihas left
SouLhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
suzyohas joined
SouLhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
hanneshas left
suzyohas joined
hanneshas joined
lumihas left
matlaghas left
lskdjfhas left
ralphmhas left
lskdjfhas left
Alexhas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
marcGe0rG, ?action=roster;preauth=TOKEN ?
Ge0rGmarc: no, `?roster;preauth=TOKEN`
Ge0rGmarc: I the action string is `roster`
marcNow we're at the beginning :D
Ge0rGmarc: not at all
marcGe0rG, we discussed the action stuff already and got to the point where we both agreed that we don't want the "roster" action :)
Ge0rGmarc: yes, but then I reread https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0379.html#link_generation and realized it's the missing link
marcAnd now you're convinced that we should use ?roster ?
Ge0rGmarc: I'm now more indifferent to using `roster` or ``
marchas left
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
marchas left
marcGe0rG, I would use "roster" for optical reason :D
SamWhitedI've got a meeting later to (hopefully) convince work to book me a ticket to FOSDEM; we have cheap-ish flights from here to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and probably a few other places. Anyone on that side of the pond know where it's easiest/cheapest to catch a train to the summit/FOSDEM so I can give work some rough price estimates?
ralphmhas left
SamWhited(flying to Brussels directly is way more expensive for whatever reason)
Ge0rGSamWhited: probably more expensive because of EU administration
mathieuifyi tickets from paris were fairly cheap last time I looked
SamWhitedThat would probably be a good option too; I think flying there is relatively cheap
mathieuiamsterdam-brussels looks like ~50€
Ge0rGSamWhited: a one direction train ride FFM-Brussels is ~3hrs and 70-125€, depending on rate
mathieuiSamWhited, https://www.trainline.eu/ has most regional prices for western europe
ralphmhas joined
tuxhas left
Holgerhas left
Holgerhas joined
mathieuidamn, the price of the train tickets doubled since two weeks ago
SamWhitedI should book this soon… I hate coordinating trips like this.
remkoSamWhited: AFAIK, there should be belgian trains from amsterdam, but not frankfurt.
remkoSamWhited: Belgian trains are www.belgianrail.be
SamWhitedYah, looks like I'd have to go to Cologne and transfer if I did FRA
SamWhitedAMS looks the cheapest overall anyways though; or I could be super cheap and take a bus from there.
remkothere are also trains to cologne, yes
SamWhitedAlthough I wouldn't mind accidentally getting stuck for a day or two in Paris on my way back if I were to do that… and it's not much more expensive
Ge0rGGerman trains are pretty expensive, though
remkothe train to cologne is belgian
SamWhitedActually, I wouldn't mind exploring Amsterdam either, so I guess either would be fine
danielSamWhited: there is also one from Frankfurt Main station to Brussels. Not sure if that's better than transferring in Cologne though
remkobut yeah, getting from frankfurt to there might be expensive
SamWhiteddaniel: I think that one was more expensive, let me pull it up again
SamWhitedyah, roughly twice the price
Ge0rGbus from FRA to Brussels would be ~20€
mathieuiyeah but like 10 hours or something?
Ge0rGnot sure you want to have a 6-7hr trip though.
SamWhitedyah, if I'm doing the bus I'm doing FRA
SamWhitederr, AMS
SamWhitedtoo many airports
Ge0rGWhy can't we route XSF participants via XMPP?
Ge0rGWhy can't we route XSF Summit participants via XMPP?
KevI've just realised it's quicker (by a margin) for me to fly Cardiff to Amsterdam and Amsterdam to Brussels than to go to Brussels by train.
remkoSamWhited: Frankfurt is also twice as far away from brussels than amsterdam. So Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Eindhoven are your best bets for airports.
jjrhCan one remotely attend the XSF fosdem?
remkoKev: including waiting time in airports?
KevSeems to.
Ge0rGjjrh: yes, there's Cisco WebEx.
SamWhitedTrain ride time doesn't count, because I'm 5 and riding trains is the best (maybe it wears off if you live somewhere that actually has reasonable trains though)
remkothere's also ecological footprint to bear in mind ;)
edhelasfor https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0157.html is it possible to put MUC as well ? I'd like to put our chatroom for support-addresses
jjrhAwesome (minus the webex part)
mathieuiSamWhited, don’t forget to add like 10-15€ for paris tickets though (it’s stupidly expensive)
SamWhited*nods* I'm not actually sure if they'd care about that, but I figured I might as well give them the lowest prices I can find while trying to convince them
KevTBH, the worst part of the trip back is usually getting up early and getting to the station, which would be no better (actually worse) getting to the airport instead.
KevI usually leave the hotel 'early' and get back home late afternoon.
Ge0rGedhelas: "This contact information may include email addresses, web URLs, and JabberIDs" - I see no reason not to give a MUC with "?join"
remkoKev: and more stress. Flying is always more stress, and less legroom :)
mathieuiyeah, that
mathieuimore stress, more processes and lineups, and less legroom
mathieui(and expensive water)
KevThis is all getting close. I probably have to start thinking seriously about booking stuff next week. Do we have venues and hotels arranged yet?
Ge0rGprobably had some 20.000km of train rides last year. That does wear off.
SamWhitedFlying's not so bad if you're not in the U.S., but I still hate it. Trains I can find a table, order food, and have a surface to put my laptop on
danielTrain prices are unpredictable unfortunately. I'm paying 22 Euro for Dresden Brussels. That's 700km and a 9 hour train ride by high speed train
jjrhSamWhited, flying in Canada is still a crappy experience.
remkoi was expecting the IC option from amsterdam to be cheapest, but apparently, the high speed train is cheaper
remkoso yeah, very unpredictable
mathieuiwell, still more predictable than planes
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
edhelasGe0rG yeah I though the same
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGedhelas: I'm actually pondering about doing the same for yax.im.
Ge0rGedhelas: you could just display the link and reuse xmpp: linkification
ralphmhas joined
lskdjfhas left
danielIf you are into trains you should take the FRA - Cologne - Brussels trains instead of FRA - Frankfurt central - Brussels. Because the FRA - Cologne section is one of the few sections where the high speed trains actually reach their top speed. And the FRA train station is amazing. It's predominantly severed by high speed trains and just seeing the trains enter the station is amazing in itself.
SamWhitedthat's tempting me to do that instead of AMS
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
remkoon the other hand, in amsterdam, you can legally get cannabis :)
remkoyou know, the other kind of trainspotting
SamWhitedI see what you did there…
danielremko: I don't think that's a good argument these days for Americans
SamWhitedIn Austin it's "illegal", but also invisible to cops, which is very convenient
SamWhitedBut yah, that's what Colorado is for
moparisthebesthas left
KevThere's no good argument for Americans.
KevOh, right, I see what you mean.
SamWhited*snort* it's true
zinidhas left
lskdjfhas left
moparisthebestmy only question is if it's invisible to cops, if you wrap something in it, does that become invisible too?
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
lskdjfhas left
SamWhitedTentatively added myself to the summit list since I'm reasonably sure I can convince work with this. Hotel is still a problem until we know what the group discount is though.
lskdjfhas left
KevDo we have a hotel sorted, then?
Kevheads off to the wiki
SamWhitednot as far as I know, that's always the problem for me. Work wants to book early and at the same time I book a flight, but hotel isn't done until a week or so before
ZashThat is the question
SamWhitedAnd by "always" I mean "last year and this year"
danielKev: according to my logs Guus signed something and sent it over but is still waiting to hear back from them
KevSamWhited: Yeah, it wasn't always this way.
danielThat's a lot entry from the 28th though
Tobiashas joined
KevOh, yes, wiki says it's the Thon again.
danielhas left
Ge0rGdaniel: I don't think you get to go through Frankfurt main station if you are going from the airport to Cologne
danielhas joined
danielGe0rG: I was talking about the airport station (FRA)
Ge0rGdaniel: ah, alright then. Don't have special memories about that one, though the Frankfurt skyline is rather impressive.
Ge0rGBut yeah, FRA->Cologne is the track where you can actually go 300km/h
danielGe0rG: I guess you are not into trains then 😀
Ge0rGdaniel: as I said, I'm travelling around 20k km per year by train ;)
SamWhitedhas joined
danielAnd as far as skylines are concerned I prefer the ride into Cologne. Less pretentious 😀
SamWhitedCologne is less pretentious? That's impressive
Ge0rGSamWhited: frankfurt is full of bankster skyscrapers, cologne has a rather classic appeal
danielI'm from Cologne I should say
tuxhas joined
danielSo there might be some bias
SamWhitedYah, but Cologne is known for Eau de Cologne, and nothing is more pretentious than that!
lumihas joined
ralphmhas left
Martinhas left
ralphmhas joined
suzyohas joined
Kevhas left
hanneshas joined
moparisthebesthas left
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
Guushas left
Guushas joined
ralphmhas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
hanneshas left
hanneshas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Guushas left
SamWhitedSome SCAM person may want to try and put us on this list: https://fosdem.org/2018/fringe/
SamWhitedWhich I just found out was a thing
waqashas joined
waqashas left
Alexhas left
KevMaybe. It's not clear that it would be good to do so, at least to me.
KevIf we assume that anyone actively involved in the community already knows about the summit, that means someone finding us on Fringe is someone not actively involved. If they're an active XMPP person who just happens to be outside the community, them knowing about the Summit might be great.
ralphmhas joined
KevBut if they're a person with a bit of an interest and wants to come along to find out what we're about, the Summit might not be an inviting place for them.
KevLots of strong opinions, very technical discussions, sometimes getting a bit heated, with little time for someone to get up to speed on what's going on.
Kev5 minutes at the stand at FOSDEM would probably be better outreach for them.
KevYour milage may reasonably vary :)
SamWhitedI would assume that new people who don't know anything about XMPP wouldn't read that page with a description on it and then decide to go (and if they did they'd know what they were getting into)
danielhas left
danielhas joined
SamWhitedAnd if they don't, it doesn't stop most people who won't go from seeing the booth
zinidhas left
jabberatdemohas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
KevI realise you can reasonably make the argument that it's good to put us there. I don't agree, but this isn't a thing where I'm clearly right and you're clearly wrong :)
jabberatdemohas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
waqashas joined
Ge0rGhas left
hanneshas joined
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
suzyohas joined
lumihas left
ralphmhas left
goffihas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
ralphmhas joined
hanneshas left
hanneshas joined
jjrhhas left
suzyohas joined
Guushas joined
ralphmhas joined
jjrhhas left
ralphmhas joined
jjrhhas left
moparisthebesthas left
SamWhitedhas left
remkohas left
ralphmhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
zinidhas joined
ralphmhas joined
Alexhas joined
marchas left
pep.Is this up-to-date? https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XSF_Infrastructure Some services are using docker now right? And systems on the machines seem particularly old
XSF Discussion - 2018-01-05