XSF Discussion - 2018-01-07

  1. marc

    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

  2. marc

    So this is not optional anylonger

  3. Zash

    Is it not?

  4. marc

    Zash, hm?

  5. Zash

    Is xmpp://hostname/ invalid? Where does it say that?

  6. marc

    Zash, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2 See "iauthxmpp"

  7. marc

    That's too bad :(

  8. 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

  9. marc

    God damn... ôÔ

  10. Ge0rG

    marc: except you don't need the inviter address in there because it's implicitly known via the token

  11. marc

    Ge0rG, only if the provider hosts the landing page

  12. Ge0rG

    marc: you know who invited you from the oob channel. The server knows from the token

  13. Ge0rG

    marc: the inviter address isn't reliable anyway, somebody could manipulate it

  14. marc

    Ge0rG, okay, that's fine for me

  15. marc

    just asked because we always used this URI format

  16. Ge0rG

    marc: you used it. I didn't... 😜

  17. marc

    Ge0rG, we "defined" this some time ago ;)

  18. Ge0rG

    marc: I'm pretty sure I told you from the beginning to leave away the inviter JID

  19. 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.

  20. zinid

    ha, according to the ABNF from the RFC, 'xmpp:' is a correct URI

  21. Ge0rG

    zinid: yes, it's the short form for "do more Jabber!"

  22. zinid

    ok, I will give the link "xmpp:" to everyone who asks about jabber

  23. zinid

    for the record, this is a problem of RFC 3986, due to weird 'reg-name' definition

  24. zinid

    reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )

  25. zinid


  26. zinid

    > 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.

  27. zinid

    so xmpp: should be translated to xmpp:localhost from what I understand

  28. Ge0rG

    Which doesn't make any sense, except if serverless becomes a thing

  29. jonasw

    marc, could you submit your ProtoXEP soon-ish please?

  30. jonasw

    I think we’re having a prime example here why it’s nice to develop this as Experimental ASAP

  31. 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)

  32. Ge0rG

    Yes, I'm anticipating it as well.

  33. jonasw

    marc, if there are open TODOs in your XEP that is entirely fine

  34. Ge0rG

    Yaxim 0.9.3 will be finished soon, and it would be awesome to have that in it

  35. jonasw

    (since you’ve got a PoC implementation, I presume that it is implementable)

  36. zinid

    does the xep require server interaction?

  37. Ge0rG

    zinid: yes, ad-hoc commands to generate tokens and server support to redeem them in IBR or roster subscription