XSF Discussion - 2018-04-11

Morning. Quick question - has anyone ever implemented POSH (RFC 7711)?

not me

dwd: i think tobias had a prototype at least. I did as well but... its probably lost

Dave Cridland: yes

On the client side

daniel, Conversations does it? ANy idea if servers ever do it?

daniel, I mean, do servers have POSH setup for them?

It's one of the 3 possible verification methods we offer the users of our domain hosting (among just ignoring the self signed cert and uploading a cert)

Most users opt to give us a cert though

And by offering I mean we generate the json file an provide short instructions on where to copy the file to

Dave Cridland, yeah..i implemented a prototype for prosody during IETF 87

0-192hcvjgt?

catropy?

jonasw: you got it!

the 192 got me for a while, that’s 128+64 and thus suspicious (also a common kilo-bits-per-second rate for compressed audio)

jonasw: yeah, the youngest generation cats grew up in a digital world and know more about it then we! ;-)

ping

.

¡

⁉

-pong

Bad Bunneh

12:52:43 Zash> jonasw: Wanna forward to Dave that I have a working version of Tobias' POSH implementation? (But being anti-web, not sure I like the idea of it becoming popular)

Dave Cridland, ^

Uoooh

Does anyone have a write up for the proposed lite muc?

Doing a clean implementation of MUC at the moment, and I'd forgotten just how *horrible* it is on the server.

Kev, Especially the nick-share stuff.

🐮

Dave Cridland, but it's so convinient

I always pondered about removing that completely, that's at least almost 300 lines of code going away

Tobias, Oh, for sure. Just that implementing it is a pain.

I wonder how many times the size of 369 45 would grow if we actually specified everything in it and didn't rely on folklore.

(because most of iq routing junk is for that)

Maranda, seems like a good way to push MIX adaption.

jonasw not sure if serious ¬¬

edhelas, I am

edhelas, essentially breaking MUC by breaking multi-client usage will push MIX adaption :)

*adoption

"Multi-client usage" was never provisioned by the xep though

jonasw: breaking MUC will push WhatsApp adoption.

I'd prefer fixing MIX over breaking MUC.

Ge0rG, ssssh

Maranda: yes, but we made it work.

Maranda: Yes, it was. Just entirely unspecified.

+almost

Essentially *it's a hack* 😘

What in XMPP isn't ...

Touché

isn't *everything* a hack?

are we not all hacks in the end

hacks and hoes

ChatSecure iOS has gotten an unofficial MUC. chatsecure@conference.magicbroccoli.de

Magic 🥦 I wonder how they taste

magical

Example of great bits of XEP-0045: A user always gets a room subject when they join the room, right? Fairly clear, it's a MUST (well, a SHALL). But when you get to room creation it's elided and it's not clear if that's just because it's not worth repeating, or it's expected that on creation you don't get one.

🤔

Kev: and it's not quite clear how to tell the client about an empty subject.

That bit is clear isn't it? Empty elemet, it says it right next to the SHALL IIRC.

Hmmm

Hmmmmmm

https://pastebin.com/Js6RptFe

with a newline inside?

That's not creation. Or, at least, you're not including 201

Kev, no I'm not including 201, but that's another issue I suppose (yay?)

yeah, I filed bugs against servers for not sending the empty subject

because it’s the only way to be sure that MUC join is over

(and history replay)

jonasw: with GC1, MUC join is never over

Ohhh I missed the 201, yay for new bug

\o/

jonasw, if 201 then no muc history right? and no subject

Ge0rG, I heard that’s going to be burned anyways

aiui

pep., dunno, actually

XEP doesn't say

I'm just at that bit

jonasw: that's not ensured yet

there we go.

Ohess

Gajim acts funny to status 201

I guess not sending it prevented that.

Maybe fixing gajim would be better, if it's doing it wrong

pep., hmm I don't think it's wrong it just auto-requests the configuration form.

pep., https://pastebin.com/8knbN8KT

(and in the UI [17:19:35] ‎A new room has been created -> which never appeared before)

I wonder if Prosody also avoids sending 201 currently (didn't touch that bit of MUC code much)

Maranda, it's behind a configuration option in Prosody

MattJ, hmm hmm

MattJ, suppose not in pre-0.9 though

Correct

MattJ, whats the reason for not sending 201?

daniel, because Prosody didn't lock the room by default

and 201 implies the room is locked until configuration

what does 'locked' mean in this context?

Nobody can join the room

members only? not able to send any messages?

nobody else i assume? since the creator is still in the room?

The creator is in the room, yes

No, when you create a room it's initially locked an the creator MUST choose to either make an instant room (default config) or reserved room (manual config)

So it's not quite members-only, although the result is kinda the same.

so there are clients that don't configure the room and expect it to 'just work'?

Potentially

But they're broken if so

I see. I'm just curious about prosodys decision to not lock them

OTOH, there are clients that do rely on servers doing the right thing :)

Most clients didn't/don't implement instant room creation, and the locking thing was annoying and unintuitive

(I note that for gc1 join-creates, the server doesn't lock and just sets an instant room)

dwd: for bookmarks2, can we also get an account disco feature if the server does compatibility conversion?

Kev: when using References, what's the expectation if there are multiple body languages? A reference per lang?

That seems reasonable.

ta

Shouldn't that be one reference with multiple range elements? Or do we want to support i18nalized images?

Sorry, yes, with each range specifying a different body lang, I guess. Not thinking.

The second part of my question was serious though. There might be use cases for that. Eg On Google play, you can have localized screenshots.

There isn't a range element though? Just a pair of begin/end attributes?

I'm sure we can create a range element if needed

But I'm still not quite sure which use cases References is supposed to cover, and at which complexity cost

Yeah, the case I care about is mentions

Tobi and I have been having a discussion about References for Images, and I think the rough concensus is to use SIMS, and follow that model for other References - so if you want to refer to something you add a new payload type into References.

And just have it as a wrapper.

There are multiple unsolved problems with mentions.

Kev: aren't payload types an attribute value, and thus carved in stone?

No?

Maybe we should rather have the "type" be a sub element, like <reaction>🤦‍♂️</reaction>

I mean, yes it's an attribute, but there's nothing that says that attributes can't be extended.

And has the advantage of being clear that you don't support the type.

Kev: implementations will end up with an enum type and vomit stack traces all over the user

Not if the XEP says that you must expect unexpected values :)

Unless we bump the namespace with each new element type, breaking backward compatibility

Nobody expects the Unexpected Values!

<<If the service receives a cancellation, it MUST destroy the room.>>

Well If I cancel Gajim sends nothing

so that will end with an idefinitely locked room?

or until it's configured (tm)

✏

I can't seem to find on the xep, but is there a specific error to send to bounce joins when a room is locked?

oh wait

item-not-found, nm

Ge0rG, that throttle thing you have on yax.im is severely annoying :P

Maranda: tell the developers. I think there is a ticket for that somewhere

Ge0rG, hehe was trying to use it as guinea pig https://muc.metronome.im:5280/pastebin/43e8c3c7-af46-45a7-8541-17edb26c0797 but keept blocking messages

:P

Maranda: I'm not quite sure what you are trying to tell me.

Ge0rG, nothing that I was getting a lot of service-unavailable while poking with messages because of the throttling.

Maranda: I don't think my throttling would cause any errors.

Ge0rG, well it did.... I was typing one letter and sending it repeatedly to test and started getting "there was an error sending the message (service-unavailable)" after a a bit more than dozen or so

Maranda: to a MUC?

Nope

was to a bare jid.

(normal user)

Maranda: mod_throttle_unsolicited then.

https://modules.prosody.im/mod_throttle_unsolicited.html