Ge0rG, since xmpp://example.com/inviter@example.com is not allowed (authority needs to be a full JID) the account creation process always requires a username for the new account
marc
So this is not optional anylonger
Zash
Is it not?
marc
Zash, hm?
Zash
Is xmpp://hostname/ invalid? Where does it say that?
marc
Zash, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2 See "iauthxmpp"
marc
That's too bad :(
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhas joined
marc
Ge0rG, xep-0077 defines ?register action where the path component contains the server to be register on. I think that conflicts with our URI xmpp://invitee@example.com/inviter@example.com?register;preauth=TOKEN
marc
God damn... ôÔ
la|r|mahas joined
tuxhas left
tuxhas joined
lumihas joined
suzyohas joined
goffihas joined
suzyohas joined
bearhas left
ralphmhas joined
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Ge0rG
marc: except you don't need the inviter address in there because it's implicitly known via the token
marc
Ge0rG, only if the provider hosts the landing page
Ge0rG
marc: you know who invited you from the oob channel. The server knows from the token
Ge0rG
marc: the inviter address isn't reliable anyway, somebody could manipulate it
ralphmhas joined
marc
Ge0rG, okay, that's fine for me
marc
just asked because we always used this URI format
Ge0rG
marc: you used it. I didn't... 😜
Guushas left
bearhas joined
Guushas joined
marc
Ge0rG, we "defined" this some time ago ;)
Ge0rG
marc: I'm pretty sure I told you from the beginning to leave away the inviter JID
efrithas left
efrithas joined
ralphmhas joined
Guushas left
bearhas left
efrithas left
ralphmhas joined
mathieuiihas joined
Tobiashas joined
danielhas left
jerehas joined
ralphmhas joined
andrey.ghas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
efrithas joined
Alexhas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
suzyohas joined
suzyohas joined
efrithas left
uchas joined
Alexhas left
bearhas joined
la|r|mahas left
Alexhas joined
Tobiashas joined
la|r|mahas joined
Tobiashas joined
bearhas left
Kev
I don't think 5122 says it needs to be a full JID. It does say it needs to have a localpart, though, which is probably what you really care about.
danielhas left
zinid
ha, according to the ABNF from the RFC, 'xmpp:' is a correct URI
Alexhas left
danielhas left
efrithas joined
Alexhas joined
danielhas left
ralphmhas joined
la|r|mahas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
blablahas left
blablahas left
blablahas joined
la|r|mahas joined
efrithas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
blablahas left
bearhas joined
Ge0rG
zinid: yes, it's the short form for "do more Jabber!"
zinid
ok, I will give the link "xmpp:" to everyone who asks about jabber
zinid
for the record, this is a problem of RFC 3986, due to weird 'reg-name' definition
> If the URI scheme defines a default for host, then that default
applies when the host subcomponent is undefined or when the
registered name is empty (zero length). For example, the "file" URI
scheme is defined so that no authority, an empty host, and
"localhost" all mean the end-user's machine, whereas the "http"
scheme considers a missing authority or empty host invalid.
winfriedhas joined
zinid
so xmpp: should be translated to xmpp:localhost from what I understand
ralphmhas joined
bearhas left
la|r|mahas joined
Guushas joined
la|r|mahas left
hanneshas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
marchas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
matlaghas left
la|r|mahas joined
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
Alexhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas joined
Guushas left
ralphmhas joined
valohas joined
valohas joined
bearhas joined
blablahas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
la|r|mahas left
bearhas left
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
suzyohas joined
la|r|mahas left
ralphmhas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
mimi89999has left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
blablahas left
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
bearhas joined
lumihas joined
la|r|mahas left
Guushas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas left
tuxhas joined
tuxhas joined
la|r|mahas left
mimi89999has joined
SamWhitedhas joined
la|r|mahas left
danielhas left
bearhas left
la|r|mahas joined
la|r|mahas joined
edhelashas left
edhelashas joined
hanneshas left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
tuxhas joined
hanneshas joined
danielhas left
la|r|mahas left
Ge0rG
Which doesn't make any sense, except if serverless becomes a thing
la|r|mahas left
Guushas left
zinidhas left
danielhas left
jonasw
marc, could you submit your ProtoXEP soon-ish please?
jonasw
I think we’re having a prime example here why it’s nice to develop this as Experimental ASAP
jonasw
(every few days somebody asks for something to easier onboard people, and it’d be nice to be able to point to that protoxep in the inbox at least, even better if we had that experimental XEP)
Guushas joined
bearhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
SamWhitedhas joined
Ge0rG
Yes, I'm anticipating it as well.
jonasw
marc, if there are open TODOs in your XEP that is entirely fine
Ge0rG
Yaxim 0.9.3 will be finished soon, and it would be awesome to have that in it
jonasw
(since you’ve got a PoC implementation, I presume that it is implementable)
uchas joined
uchas joined
waqashas joined
tuxhas left
bearhas left
pep.has joined
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
@Alacerhas left
waqashas left
@Alacerhas joined
waqashas joined
lumihas joined
la|r|mahas left
zinid
does the xep require server interaction?
SamWhitedhas left
hanneshas left
hanneshas joined
danielhas left
Ge0rG
zinid: yes, ad-hoc commands to generate tokens and server support to redeem them in IBR or roster subscription