XSF Discussion - 2018-04-15

Ge0rG, re MUC self-ping/removal of gc1, that won't fix clients that don't show presence? like Conversations. But there's not much we can do for that I suppose.

what does showing presence have to do with removal of GC1?

One of the goals was to let the user know they've lost the connection to the room and their are not silently being reconnected to it, with possibly history loss in between

*they are not

yes

conversations *does* show when you get removed from a room

(it shows a "You are no longer in this room [Join]" blob at the bottom of the message view)

well but if it self-pings, and then reconnects to it, you'll be reconnected in the end

yes

so?

ahh

So it needs a way to clearly show the break

no, the point is that the reconnect is well-defined

it can easily do that

it would request history since the last message it got and/or MAM

yes but that might not cover all messages

adding a marker in there that messages might’ve been lost due to server issues would be trivial, I presume

ok

but again this has nothing to do with showing presence

well kind of, I mean poezio doesn't have much to do about this self-ping thing, I see part/joins already, and I already get errors displayed

it has to do a lot about it

or it already odes

There is self-ping already

what happens with poezio without self-ping is that the next message you send to the MUC is just not sent

Maybe not exactly the same that Ge0rG wants?

and you have to realize that yourself and /cycle

yeah, the self-ping of poezio has the issue (which poezio can’t do anything about) that it might end up at another resource of yours which cannot reply, thus timing out, thus cycling you unnecessarily

or latency, and unnecessary cycling :(

Ping timeout doesn't matter, does it? It's not until you start getting errors that you need to cycle.

Kev, if the s2s link is broken badly you’ll also want to let the user know.

which is generally a timeout condition. also, you’ll probably have to re-join, so you need to cycle

If the s2s link is broken badly, you get a ping response.

And there's no point rejoining while it's down.

So I think the right thing is to only cycle on an error.

You can warn the user on a slow response, but leave them 'in' the room.

hm

I’m confused

if the s2slink is broken badly, you don’t get a response, at all

If it's 'broken', you get remote not found.

with badly, I mean it’s blackholed and waiting for a two days TCP timeout or The Prosody Bug or something like that

If it's up but blackholing, you get no response.

In that state, cycling achieves nothing.

what else would you do though?

start cycling until you’re back in

Nothing.

Wait until you get an error to cycle.

so you continue to ping

Yes.

hm

Avoids the 'sent to a disconnected resource that isn't you' issue too.

the advantage being that (a) you don’t get dropped out by other clients getting your IQ and not being able to reply and (b) if the s2slink actually has stream management or something fancy you don’t lose anything

The disadvantage of all this is that if you're in a MUC that doesn't allow IQ, you're going to be perpetually cycling.

MUC that doesn't allow IQ?

Some MUCs disallow all PM traffic.

Because it'd be a nuisance, e.g. getting arbitrary file transfer requests or whathaveyou.

is it specified what type of error such a MUC returns?

service-unavailable me thinks?

service-unavailable would be treated as success by MUC-self-ping implementations ala Ge0rG

but I vaguely recalls forbidden too

also that ping implementations should treat all errors as *success*

Maranda, no

not-allowed is supposedly returned if you’re not joined

are we talking about the keepalive pings or something else?

oh

nm

because for mod_s2s_keepalive or whatever it was called as long as a IQ reply is returned it shouldn't matter.

yeah, that’s not the topic though

but if it's about being into the room

on a slightly different topic is poezio the only *still in development* thing using GC1.0?

I’m pretty sure that poezio doesn’t use GC1.0

Nothing uses GC 1.0

yeah, it doesn’t, Maranda

Only thing we found that did was the prosody web chat, and it's been fixed.

I'm not sure why I remember a talk about it sending presences without x ✏

for joins

ah well

all the GC1.0 junk is covered anyways

(now at least)

Zash, hmm so the data Link Mauve and Ge0rG got about GC1.0 were about the web chat only?

Huh?

they collected statistics about GC1.0 joins

You said "that the only thing we found was the prosody web chat"

I collected some stats from conference.prosody.im

Oh ok.

Kev: will rooms that forbid PMs also forbid IQs?

IQ seems a lower level thing, which should not have control coupled to PMs

I'm pretty sure one of the XSF MUCs disallowed PMs in the past, but self-ping did work

Ge0rG, you mean jdev@conference.jabber.org that's the only one that comes to mind.

Maranda: well possible.

Ge0rG: Depends. But if PMs are disabled for not getting spammed reasons, blocking IQs makes sense too, because file transfer, Jingle call, etc.

Kev: I'm looking for answers from real implementations