jonasw, 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
Ge0rG
there is the implicit assumption that stream features / server caps don't change over the lifetime of a connection.
Ge0rG
I suppose the server could send a presence unavailable from the service domain, containing the caps hash.
Flow
hmm, my first though was to use a message for the push
hanneshas joined
Ge0rG
Flow: entity caps is using presence everywhere. If you have a presence listener anyway, it would just get reused
Flow
good point, but i'm not sure if this justifies
Flow
reusing presence
Ge0rG
We could just invent a new nonza.
Zash
Whut
Flow
that only causes trouble when using stream resumption
Flow
or maybe not since the features are announced early
Ge0rG
</s>
Zash
Features are still things attached to potentially remote entities, right?
Zash
So you want notifications to be routable stanzas.
Flow
Zash, so you also think that the service should use an unavailable presence as xep115/390 push?
Zash
Flow: Huh?
pep.
Could this be used for stuff like pubsub services?
Guushas left
Flow
pep, 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
Flow
which seems a little but to much for a problem that hasn't been a problem since xep115 exists
Ge0rG
just send out presence pushes to all entities that ever asked for your caps :P
Flow
Ge0rG, for all eternity?
pep.
As querying a service with thousands if nodes can be quite heavy
Zash
Flow: I'm probably missing tons of context here
Ge0rG
while we are at it, there is no caching for disco#items.
Flow
Zash, I don't think so, it's really just "what if your service gets a new feature at runtime"
Ge0rG
Zash: 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)
Flow
Ge0rG, like client's caching disco#items?
Zash
disco-sub!
ralphmhas left
Ge0rG
Flow: there are rather static and more dynamic disco#items...
Ge0rG
The typical flow is:
1) query domain for disco#items
2) iterate over each item's disco#info
Flow
Ge0rG, true
Ge0rG
maybe adding the caps into disco#items would already prove sufficient, as we can't skip 1 anyway
suzyohas joined
ralphmhas joined
Flow
Ge0rG, that doesn't sound like a bad idea
Ge0rG
I'm full of good ideas. Implementation is what matters :P
Flow
only problem is that xep30 has a "<item/> SHOULD be empty"
Ge0rG
just add a new attribute to item :P
Flow
but the schema!
Ge0rG
unknown attributes must be ignored?
Flow
says who?
Flow
(not saying that isn't what I'm doing)
Ge0rG
general consensus
marc
Ge0rG, 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*
Ge0rG
marc: that's what I was telling you in the beginning :P
marc
Ge0rG, no, you had the idea to combine PARS and my account creation becaus they are similar :p
remkohas joined
Ge0rG
marc: 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.
Ge0rG
marc: but honestly, I've seen multiple situations in the past where the account creation flow would make sense.
marc
Ge0rG, :D
marc
Okay, let's keep it then?
Ge0rG
marc: I wouldn't even mind putting both use cases into PARS.
marc
hm, doesn't fit the name PARS IMO
marc
at least account creation
remkohas left
Ge0rG
marc: good point.
Ge0rG
marc: I suppose renaming PARS into "Easy Onboarding" would be counter-productive. Some nerds already know what "PARS" stands for.
Ge0rG
jonasw: being the editor, is there prior case law, or do you consider it a good idea to rename an XEP when its scope shifts?
Kev
I'd expect Council to be involved in the shifting of scope, at least.
Kev
One can't really get Council to accept an Experimental XEP for one purpose, and then change the purpose of the XEP.
danielhas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: 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.
Ge0rG
They are using the same wire format
Ge0rG
And are all belonging to "Easy Onboarding"
Kev
That doesn't seem to be particularly changing the scope much.
Ge0rG
Kev: it's not "Pre-Authenticated Roster Subscription" any more, but rather "Pre-Authenticated User Onboarding"
Kev
Yeah.
Ge0rG
so it's not changing the purpose, but still shifting the focus
Kev
This isn't particularly ringing alarm bells for me.
pep.
PARS -> PAUO, hmm
pep.
I preferred the first name Ge0rG :p
Ge0rG
pep.: me too. Will need to come up with a new catchy backronym first.
Martinhas joined
pep.
And the discussion about caps ended
goffihas joined
Ge0rG
marc: so have you written down anything yesterday?
danielhas left
marc
Ge0rG, no, not anything. What's the plan now? New XEP, re-using PARS XEP?
Ge0rG
marc: I'm ambivalent about leaving account-creation in or out.
Ge0rG
marc: maybe a new "Easy Onboarding" XEP is better suited.
Ge0rG
or maybe... dunno
Ge0rGlacks coffee
marc
Ge0rG, a new XEP for user invitation and account creation as is?
lskdjfhas joined
ralphmhas joined
Martinhas left
Martinhas joined
la|r|mahas joined
Ge0rG
marc: 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
Ge0rG
we 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
Ge0rG
or just two XEPs: PARS and a new one for everything else.
Ge0rG
or stick everything into PARS, because there is so much overlap between #1 and #2 and between #2 and #3
Alexhas joined
marc
Ge0rG, 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
Ge0rG
From a symmetry perspective, #1 and PARS are similar to each other as they are building blocks that can be combined in #2
Ge0rG
so it wouldn't make much sense to have PARS separate, but not IBR+
zinidhas left
Kevhas left
suzyohas joined
marc
Ge0rG: So, a new XEP for account creation and user invitation as already planned?
Ge0rG
marc: 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
Ge0rG
marc: 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
marc
Ge0rG, and what's the content of this new XEP?
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rG
marc: 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
marc
Ge0rG, two use cases = account creation & user invitation?
Ge0rG
marc: right
Ge0rG
marc: there is really no need to distinguish between #2 and #3 from yesterday's discussion
jerehas left
jerehas joined
jerehas left
marc
Ge0rG, -> no "ibr" parameter?
Ge0rG
marc:
account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX`
user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?roster;preauth=XXX;ibr`✎
marc
Ge0rG, wtf, we discussed 2h regarding the action parameter and you didn't like it and now you have "?roster"? :D
jjrhhas left
Ge0rG
marc:
account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX`
user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?;preauth=XXX;ibr` ✏
la|r|mahas left
marc
:D
marc
And no "?;" please :)
Ge0rG
marc: 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 ;)
marc
Ge0rG, well, for PARS-only the "?roster" action makes sense, doesn't it?
marc
Not not in combination with "ibr", I thought that's what came out last time we discussed the action parameter stuff
marc
s/Not/But
Ge0rG
marc: generally speaking, the ?roster action doesn't make any sense, ever.
marc
Ge0rG, okay, you should update your XEP then
Ge0rG
marc: we should update 0147
Ge0rG
except nobody cared about it two years ago.
marc
Ge0rG, I would mention server-side PARS in the new XEP and make a reference to the PARS XEP, okay?
marc
For server-side PARS the server returns the normal PARS URI
Ge0rG
marc: for server-side PARS, the server returns either a normal PARS URI or one with `ibr` flag.
Ge0rG
I don't know if the ibr flag needs to have a value, though.
Ge0rG
URI parsing is a art.
marc
Not really :)
marc
Ge0rG, a value?
marc
Like "ibr=" ?
Ge0rG
marc: like `ibr=1`
Ge0rG
because an empty value is not much more than no value at all
marc
No
marc
Empty values are fine
marc
See action parameters :D
Ge0rG
marc: 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
Ge0rG
query parameters need to have an "=" between key and value, albeit the value might be empty
Ge0rG
furhermore, xmpp://domain/ is invalid
marc
Okay, that's all XMPP URI related :-/
marc
But that means we need an action type
marc
At least one "iquerytype"
marc
Well, exactly one "iquerytype"
Ge0rG
marc: iquerytype may be empty, leading us back to ?;
marc
This URI definition is really shitty...
Ge0rG
marc: it never was designed for what we are doing with it now.
Ge0rG
We 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.
Ge0rG
especially as other applications will want to append crpyto keys and then render everything as a QR code
marc
You forgot "?;"
marc
Ugly as hell...
danielhas joined
goffihas left
Ge0rG
marc: yeah, ?preauth is a violation already.
marc
Ge0rG, fix your XEP then :D
Ge0rG
marc: to what? `?;`?
marc
Yes :>
Ge0rG
Can do, I suppose. Let's hope my parser won't crash on that
marc
Or we change the RFC :D
Ge0rG
Muhahaha!
Ge0rG
Sorry.
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
marc
Ge0rG, ?action=roster;preauth=TOKEN ?
Ge0rG
marc: no, `?roster;preauth=TOKEN`
Ge0rG
marc: I the action string is `roster`
marc
Now we're at the beginning :D
Ge0rG
marc: not at all
marc
Ge0rG, we discussed the action stuff already and got to the point where we both agreed that we don't want the "roster" action :)
Ge0rG
marc: yes, but then I reread https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0379.html#link_generation and realized it's the missing link
marc
And now you're convinced that we should use ?roster ?
Ge0rG
marc: I'm now more indifferent to using `roster` or ``
marchas left
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
marchas left
marc
Ge0rG, I would use "roster" for optical reason :D
SamWhited
I'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)
Ge0rG
SamWhited: probably more expensive because of EU administration
mathieui
fyi tickets from paris were fairly cheap last time I looked
SamWhited
That would probably be a good option too; I think flying there is relatively cheap
mathieui
amsterdam-brussels looks like ~50€
Ge0rG
SamWhited: a one direction train ride FFM-Brussels is ~3hrs and 70-125€, depending on rate
mathieui
SamWhited, https://www.trainline.eu/ has most regional prices for western europe
ralphmhas joined
tuxhas left
Holgerhas left
Holgerhas joined
mathieui
damn, the price of the train tickets doubled since two weeks ago
SamWhited
I should book this soon… I hate coordinating trips like this.
remko
SamWhited: AFAIK, there should be belgian trains from amsterdam, but not frankfurt.
remko
SamWhited: Belgian trains are www.belgianrail.be
SamWhited
Yah, looks like I'd have to go to Cologne and transfer if I did FRA
SamWhited
AMS looks the cheapest overall anyways though; or I could be super cheap and take a bus from there.
remko
there are also trains to cologne, yes
SamWhited
Although 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
Ge0rG
German trains are pretty expensive, though
remko
the train to cologne is belgian
SamWhited
Actually, I wouldn't mind exploring Amsterdam either, so I guess either would be fine
daniel
SamWhited: there is also one from Frankfurt Main station to Brussels. Not sure if that's better than transferring in Cologne though
remko
but yeah, getting from frankfurt to there might be expensive
SamWhited
daniel: I think that one was more expensive, let me pull it up again
Why can't we route XSF Summit participants via XMPP? ✏
Kev
I'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.
remko
SamWhited: Frankfurt is also twice as far away from brussels than amsterdam. So Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Eindhoven are your best bets for airports.
jjrh
Can one remotely attend the XSF fosdem?
remko
Kev: including waiting time in airports?
Kev
Seems to.
Ge0rG
jjrh: yes, there's Cisco WebEx.
SamWhited
Train 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)
remko
there's also ecological footprint to bear in mind ;)
edhelas
for 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
jjrh
Awesome (minus the webex part)
mathieui
SamWhited, 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
Kev
TBH, 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.
Kev
I usually leave the hotel 'early' and get back home late afternoon.
Ge0rG
edhelas: "This contact information may include email addresses, web URLs, and JabberIDs" - I see no reason not to give a MUC with "?join"
remko
Kev: and more stress. Flying is always more stress, and less legroom :)
mathieui
yeah, that
mathieui
more stress, more processes and lineups, and less legroom
mathieui
(and expensive water)
Kev
This 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.
SamWhited
Flying'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
daniel
Train 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
jjrh
SamWhited, flying in Canada is still a crappy experience.
remko
i was expecting the IC option from amsterdam to be cheapest, but apparently, the high speed train is cheaper
remko
so yeah, very unpredictable
mathieui
well, still more predictable than planes
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
edhelas
Ge0rG yeah I though the same
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rG
edhelas: I'm actually pondering about doing the same for yax.im.
edhelas: you could just display the link and reuse xmpp: linkification
ralphmhas joined
lskdjfhas left
daniel
If 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.
SamWhited
that's tempting me to do that instead of AMS
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas left
remko
on the other hand, in amsterdam, you can legally get cannabis :)
remko
you know, the other kind of trainspotting
SamWhited
I see what you did there…
daniel
remko: I don't think that's a good argument these days for Americans
SamWhited
In Austin it's "illegal", but also invisible to cops, which is very convenient
SamWhited
But yah, that's what Colorado is for
moparisthebesthas left
Kev
There's no good argument for Americans.
Kev
Oh, right, I see what you mean.
SamWhited
*snort* it's true
zinidhas left
lskdjfhas left
moparisthebest
my 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
SamWhited
Tentatively 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
Kev
Do we have a hotel sorted, then?
Kevheads off to the wiki
SamWhited
not 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
Zash
That is the question
SamWhited
And by "always" I mean "last year and this year"
daniel
Kev: according to my logs Guus signed something and sent it over but is still waiting to hear back from them
Kev
SamWhited: Yeah, it wasn't always this way.
daniel
That's a lot entry from the 28th though
Tobiashas joined
Kev
Oh, yes, wiki says it's the Thon again.
danielhas left
Ge0rG
daniel: I don't think you get to go through Frankfurt main station if you are going from the airport to Cologne
danielhas joined
daniel
Ge0rG: I was talking about the airport station (FRA)
Ge0rG
daniel: ah, alright then. Don't have special memories about that one, though the Frankfurt skyline is rather impressive.
Ge0rG
But yeah, FRA->Cologne is the track where you can actually go 300km/h
daniel
Ge0rG: I guess you are not into trains then 😀
Ge0rG
daniel: as I said, I'm travelling around 20k km per year by train ;)
SamWhitedhas joined
daniel
And as far as skylines are concerned I prefer the ride into Cologne. Less pretentious 😀
SamWhited
Cologne is less pretentious? That's impressive
Ge0rG
SamWhited: frankfurt is full of bankster skyscrapers, cologne has a rather classic appeal
daniel
I'm from Cologne I should say
tuxhas joined
daniel
So there might be some bias
SamWhited
Yah, 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
SamWhited
Some SCAM person may want to try and put us on this list: https://fosdem.org/2018/fringe/
SamWhited
Which I just found out was a thing
waqashas joined
waqashas left
Alexhas left
Kev
Maybe. It's not clear that it would be good to do so, at least to me.
Kev
If 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
Kev
But 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.
Kev
Lots 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.
Kev
5 minutes at the stand at FOSDEM would probably be better outreach for them.
Kev
Your milage may reasonably vary :)
SamWhited
I 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
SamWhited
And if they don't, it doesn't stop most people who won't go from seeing the booth
zinidhas left
jabberatdemohas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
Kev
I 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