SeveOne question about that `XMPP WG`, what would be the difference between the XSF and that?
SeveOr would it be just like a bridge?
ralphmzinid was questioning the usefulness of the XSF (to him)
ralphmYou'd have to read yesterday's logs
SeveI was paying attention
SeveStill, if he pursues to have that group be reopened, would the XSF and that group clash?
ralphmI don't think so. Who do you think would be in that group?
ralphmAlso, it seems he's left these channels.
Dele Olajidehas joined
GuusIf there is benefit from having an IETF XMPP WG, we should consider doing it.
GuusIt was hard to deduce the arguments, though.
ralphmdwd mentioned something yestersay, unrelated to zinid, I think
GuusI've read one: marketing. People would be more inclined to work on XMPP when it is affiliated with the IETF, as that's more well known that the XSF.
ralphmThat he thought might be useful to have the WG for again.
ralphmNo it was work already done at IETF
GuusI don't think that the marketing angle in itself is enough to warrant this. XMPP already is an IETF protocol.
GuusI got the impression that the suggested move to the IETF had more to do with him not finding the XSF to be effective, and wanting to go around that.
Guusa) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF>
Guusa) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF.
SeveAftear reading him I couldn't get an idea of what was the problem. I understood that he feels the image of the XSF does not help him enough when contacting customers, but the image of the IETF would.
SeveAnd also that he would expect the XSF to be more active regarding the direction of the protocol, writing XEPs and so on
GuusThe latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussin.
GuusThe latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussion.
SeveWell, it was not clear enough the point of the discussion in my opinion :D
ralphmI think that using an IETF workgroup is to foster more interaction with people outside of our community, to align with existing efforts for encryption, authentication, alternative bindings (like QUIC), etc.
GuusAs we spend a good deal of time on this, I've heard barely any arguments, and I've not heard anyone else express the same wish, I think it'd be good to pause this discussion.
Guusralphm i believe to suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should consider doing so.
SeveYes, what ralphm mentions is what I though dwd was explaining
Guusralphm i believe the suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should consider doing so.
Guusralphm i believe the suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should keep doing.
dwdYou can't form an XMPP WG in the IETF without some fairly explicit work to do (in IETF parlance, a charter).
dwdCharters give the scope of the Working Group, and also a set of milestones - witth dates - that they try to meet.
SeveSounds efficient :O
dwdThere's an interesting discussion to be had around charters, since I think both Andrew and Evgeny expressed concern at the timeframe of MIX, for example.
GuusI feel that we've been spending an imbalanced amount of time on this, based on the malcontent of _one_ (maybe two) persons. Let's drop this, until we have indication that the membership wants to pursue this further.
dwdGuus, FWIW, I would suggest we (the XSF) look into establishing a formal liaison with the IETF.
Guusdwd what would that look like in practice?
dwdGuus, Beyond that, the rest is a Council issue of what work we think might be better redirected to the IETF.
ralphmGuus: I'm talking about what I consider good reasons to attempt to reestablish a WG. Since zinid did not make a convincing case, and literally said he wanted to end the conversation, I am not going to spend much time on his supposed reasons.
SeveAnd also what would we need to do
ralphmdwd: yes, that's definitely interesting.
dwdSeve, Write a charter, and get a relevant AD to be interested. That's all a WG needs.
GuusI wonder if setting up and maintaining an IETF liaison would be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not seeing the two motivations for having a liaison apply to us much ("Prevent inadvertent duplication of effort, without obstructing either organization from pursuing its own mandate", "Provide authoritative information of one organization’s dependence on the other’s work")
dwdGuus, ralphm - I note that some guy called Matt Miller is already a Liaison Manager, it might be worth asking him on his opinion.
GuusI'm not rejecting the thought outright, though.
Guusoh, that's interesting 🙂
ralphmdwd: why would we contact this random individual?
ralphmOr should I say, (-:
dwdPreviously the... Board? COuncil? decided that we had enough folks who regularly worked within the IETF not to bother, but I think most of our heavywieght IETFers have drifted away from the XSF in their day tto day work (including M&M, Joe, StPeter).
SeveThat's interesting but on the other hand, as it was explained to Zinid, XEPs are made by the community, and so on. Looks like we would need to set a some kind of internal `charter` in order to approach them.
ralphmThe standards JIG has a charter. It just doesn't have specific goals in terms of direction or timelines.
dwdSeve, Oh, gosh no. The IETF works much the same as the XSF. It has a little more process and a lot of people involved, but it's still just a bunch of tch people.
SeveHaha ok :)
GuusSeve setting up a liaison relation with the IETF would not in any way make the IETF produce XMPP stuff. It's more about knowing about eachother, and keeping track of what the other is doing.
SeveGuus, yes yes, that is what I understood. But I also thought we would need to provide some work we would like to do, let's say. Like what ralphm mentioned about, encryption or whatever the topic is.
dwdSeve, It would have meant the XSF being formally notified about the SACM/MILE work using XMPP, for example. We might choose to notify them in return about Zinid's RELOAD work.
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
SeveThank you :)
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Guusdwd maybe make your case on the members list?
dwdSeve, Moving work to the IETF is a different matter - though a liaison statement might help a bit, we'd really just have a bunch of interested people go do the work there.
ralphmI think this is a matter for the standards list, to be honest. Members is too narrow and e.g. zinid and Andrew aren't members, right?
Ge0rGI was under the impression that the IETF is aware of the XSF and that it's the body responsible for XMPP. Is a liaison giving us more than that?
ralphmIf someone would really want to charter the work on MIX, they can propose a SIG for it. We've had those before. Not sure if it is a good idea.
ralphmGe0rG: a more formalized relationship
Sevethought we had that formalized relationship
SeveBut yes, good idea to move it to the standards list, ralphm.
GuusI think this is more of an organisational list than a standards discussion </pedantic>
ralphmGuus: well, that list happens to be the venue for all XEPs, including procedural ones
Guus... we're going to use a XEP for this?
SeveGuus, true :)
ralphmThat's not what I said, but I think that a) this topic is wider than just the membership, b) the primary objective is to establish a liaison for standards development.
ralphmDoing it as a XEP doesn't seem like a bad idea, to me, though.
GuusI disagree, but don't object.
ralphmA XEP is just our typical vehicle for formalizing protocols, best of practices, and things like SIGs, beyond what's in our bylaws.
ralphmEven though the last P current stands for Protocol, I think that the previous meaning of Proposal was more apt.
ralphmBecause it is closer to how we've used them.
ralphmE.g. if you want to know what a SIG is and how to form one, I'd direct you to XEP-0002.
ralphmIf you want to know what the Registrar does: XEP-0053.
Guusalthough tempted to discuss this further, I think we should first decide on the color of the shed in which bikes are stored temporarily. 🙂
ralphmI'm not really discussing, I'm just relaying how things have been done.
ralphmThere are procedures for creating new functions and where to discuss them.
ralphmEven if the proposal would say: Board appoints, having that written down in a short XEP, instead of hidden in Board minutes that are made intermittently, seems like a smart (but existing) idea.
Andrew Nenakhovralphm, btw I've considered that xep-385 issue I raised with backwards compatibility. Solution is quite simple: all links in <body> can be hidden with a special "hide" reference.
Problem is, 385 is based upon 372 which is deferred and looks half baked
ralphmYeah, and XEP-0385 doesn't even reference XEP-0372 (no pun intended).
ralphmI agree XEP-0372 needs quite some love.
ralphmI think the people involved have been focussing more on MIX, discussions on which caused References to be specified during last year's Summit.
Ge0rGReferences is a nice idea, but it lacks any description of how to practically implement it
Guus"We welcome your PR"
ralphmAs I said, the document needs work. I might pick it up.
GuusConverse has the mention bit, which I like.
Guusit's used with @<tabcomplete> (or when clicking on a user name)
Guusbut the mention bit is probably the most straightforward
GuusOther than what's described in the XEP you mean, ralphm ?
GuusThe message above: <body>Other than what's described in the XEP you mean, ralphm ?</body><active xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/chatstates"/><reference xmlns="urn:xmpp:reference:0" begin="49" end="55" type="mention"/>
ralphmOh, you are already using References?
Guusyes, Converse does.
Ge0rGIt doesn't contain a reference to who is mentioned?!
GuusThat seems to be true
Guusprobably because it's used for markup only.
GuusI'll raise an issue
Ge0rGBecause the markup is the easy part. How to actually reference other entities is the hard part.
Ge0rGGuus: you can get the xml colored by using ```xml as the block prefix 😁
Guusyou underestimate my level of lazyness, Ge0rG .
Guusit made me add newlines too
Ge0rGGuus: oh, sorry! 😉
ralphmOne obvious thing would be an xmpp URI to the real JID
GuusUnless in an anonymous MUC
Ge0rGThere are no anonymous MUCs. But you can obviously reference the full JID of the occupant
Ge0rGExcept this is prone to the same problems we can't solve with LMC already, where occupant identity may change in between
Guuswhich for references might be less of a problem, as it's a reference that's valid only at the time the reference was made.
Guus(not that that buys you anything)
Ge0rGThe interesting thing is what to do with such an occupant reference.
Ge0rGAnd the really really interesting question is how to reference other messages.
ralphmRight unique IDs for messages, and some way to, probably, embed that in URIs
Ge0rGWith MAM, we could use the archive ID. But that only works for rooms, not for private chats...
Ge0rGAnd obviously we need a URI scheme for messages
Ge0rGAll the important things that are missing from the XEP
ralphmI'm not sure if the definition of the construction of URIs to point to individual messages should be in this spec. The topic of message IDs in itself is already complicated.
ralphmBut, again, I agree that the References spec is in its early stages.
Dele Olajidehas left
ZashOh the memories
ralphm0. Welcome + Agenda
Guuswhat's on trello
Guus(maybe MattJ, Seve mentioned he'd try to make it but was unsure, nyco apologized)
ralphmwaiting for number 3
GuusWhich is kind of why I mentioned candidates by name.
ralphm1. Minute taker
ralphmWho can do this? Someone from the floor?
Guushargh. I just got called by daycare - my kid has a fever, need to pick her up in a few moments.
ralphmok, no worries
GuusI can stick around for one or two short topics, but 10 minutes max
ralphm2. Server outage
ralphmI guess I'll start with this one then
ralphmGuus asked for a post-mortem on the outage over the weekend.
ralphmThere's been some back and forth about this on the iteam and board mailinglists
GuusI'm grateful for everyone that pitched in to help resolve the issue.
ralphmA few questions come to mind.
* Should we worry about this?
* Is the Infrastructure Team happy with the current setup, or would it like to consider things along the lines Peter sketched?
* Do we have sufficient monitoring in case things go awry?
* What can Board to help out the Infrastructure Team?
GuusMost of that depends on how important we deem the continuous availability of services to be.
Guusif we can live with unexpected outages, then I don't see a need (maybe a desire, but no need) to change things.
MattJI think generally having our website be available at all times is a need, we lost GSoC because of it one year
ralphmIt depends. We once missed out on GSoC because of an outage, but other than that it is mostly inconvenient.
MattJIf this situation had been worse, or similarly timed, it could have had the same effect
Guusthe GSoC issue was horrible, but also a very unlikely combination of things
KevWell, that was the wiki, rather than the website.
MattJKev, same server, no?
KevThe website is trivially mirrorable.
KevThe wiki would be more work to make resilient.
ralphmKev: sure, but unfortunately Guus didn't get an answer on what was affected, yet, so we're shooting in the dark a bit.
moparisthebestas far as "website is always available" you could just slap cloudflare in front of it :'(
KevEverything except mail, pretty much.
ralphmSo what can we do to help?
Guusmoparisthebest I think everyone can think of possible improvements. Let's first see if improvements (which take effort to realise) are needed.
KevHelp depends what we want out of it vs. the effort.
KevThe 'gsoc outage' was a case of us doing something daft.
KevThis one, as far as we've seen, was an unexplained server wibble.
ralphmKev: sure, but it could be that you have already made plans, but lack time, or money, or skills.
MattJOh, you mean the backups, not bringing the server down
KevRunning unchecked code on a production machine.
Kevxmpp.net brought it down during the gsoc outage. But that's another story.
KevWe did, a little while ago, have an indication that (previous) Board was going to get sponsorship from someone in terms of sysadmin to help maintain all our systems, but I think that fell through.
MattJiirc the xmpp.net server used to be separate (?)
MattJI agree that this is part of a broader issue with iteam currently
KevNo, the observatory was on the same server as the wiki, and brought the server down by DoS, essentially.
MattJe.g. we used to have a list of XSF infrastructure. That list still exists, but is years out of date.
Guusapart from trying to improve things: what is the state of our hardware? Is it in need of replacement?
MattJI don't think we have a central record of who has (or should have) access to what systems
KevI think our most critical bit of infrastructure is the website.
MattJor disaster recovery plans
MattJIf atlas went down, I'm not sure where we'd begin with replacing it
KevIf we're willing to throw a little money at it, or othersponsorship, or whatever, we could easily docker swarm that so it's resilient.
KevBut I'm more or less out of action today, ill, so I'd be better having that discussion another time.
MattJWhy docker swarm when there are numerous easier ways to host a static website?
ralphmKev: that's ok. Do you want to schedule a time for a next chat on this topic?
MattJWhich brings us to Peter's questions
ralphmI'd be happy to talk to Edwin tonight (around our rehearsal) to see what we could do.
GuusOne thing that I'd like to discuss (later)
Guusif we do deem at least part of the infrastructure critical, then I'd prefer if we could find a way to not depend on the availability of volunteers to do disaster recovery.
ralphmShall I take this up this (broad) topic together with iteam?
ralphm(instead of all of Board)
GuusI do need to leave now
ralphmIn that case, with Seve half around, I'm not sure if that counts as quorum.
MattJI'm fine with ending
Dele Olajidehas joined
ralphmThere's one thing I'd like to mention.
ralphmThere was some heated debate yesterday about a bunch of topics, including the usefulness of the XSF itself. I'm not sure if it helps going into this right now fully.
Sevewishes to be on the loop of this
ralphmBut I learned that zinid is no longer persuing https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-car.html with the XSF.
ralphmAnd chose another approach.
ralphmI think that means it is no longer going to be resubmitted, so the Editors are aware of this.
ralphmThat's it for me.
ralphm2. Date of Next
ralphm(this is item 3)
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
SeveHey guys, sorry, the train was going through a tunnel and lost connection
Dele Olajidehas joined
Severalphm: I didn't press enter and I realized now :(
Guus> Long tunnel
Or slow train.
moparisthebestanyway what I was saying earlier, I'm not the biggest fan of this approach, but the lowest effort thing that can be done to keep the website available is to put it behind cloudflare, it's almost just clicking a button
moparisthebestcould also just host it on github pages and let them worry about it, still using xmpp.org domain
KevThe main issue with github pages is https. Unless LE has changed things like that.
MattJHTTPS works with Github pages, if you satisfy some requirements around DNS
MattJwhich is to use a CNAME, or an A/AAAA specifically, I forget which - it's in their docs
MattJand depends on whether you want them to serve the whole domain or a specific subdomain, and weirdly whether that subdomain is called 'www' or not
ZashCan't CNAME xmpp.org
moparisthebestyea I know github pages can do https, haven't looked at the details
ralphm-> iteam room
Dele Olajidehas left
Andrew NenakhovDrew a simple diagram how xmpp standards depend on each other
Andrew NenakhovDidn't list all xeps, just those mentioned in compliance suites , and some we're currently interested in
Andrew NenakhovService isn't best, does not allow to paint arrows the way I like. I'd prefer arrows to dependencies being colored according to parent status.
Andrew NenakhovBut still, picture doesn't look pretty. Probably, if we list only "strong" dependencies, it'll look more clear.
ralphmYou may want to try doing this with graphviz/dot.
ralphmMaybe there's already a script in the xeps repo
Andrew NenakhovWell I was looking for a fancy tool for my managers and to test started drawing the first thing that came to mind.
Andrew NenakhovGot carried away a big 😂
Andrew NenakhovBut there are obvious formal problems, like 0280 carbons dependency on deferred 0296
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
flowAndrew Nenakhov, why is that a (formal) problem?
Andrew NenakhovBecause when you build a set of rules, subsequent rules must be based on valid predecessors.
flowWhat makes xep296 invalid?
Andrew NenakhovIt's not invalid, it's deferred
flowIt is not like that it is marked as such or obsolte
Andrew NenakhovDeferred kinda means 'not ok'
flowAndrew Nenakhov, I don't think that this is the case
flowIt just means nobody worked on it in a while
Andrew NenakhovIt's not even listed by default when you go to extensions page.
ZashIs that meant to be XEP-0297?
ZashIe Stanza Forwarding
ZashCarbons uses that, but it's not listed in the dependencies
flowAndrew Nenakhov, possibly, but that doesn't change the meaning of "deferred"
flowZash, yeah, looks like a off-by-one
Andrew Nenakhovflow, English is not my native language, and vocabulary gives translation to Russian that is roughly similar to rejected.
flowAndrew Nenakhov, think of "postponed"
flowOxford defined it as "Put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone."
Andrew NenakhovPostponed, like, indefinitely )
flowPossibly, but that only means that it was not explicitly marked as obsolete
Andrew NenakhovAnyway I don't think it's ok when subsequent XEPs have deferred dependencies. Also very bad marketing.
Andrew NenakhovThis all does not look clear at all.
Andrew NenakhovI understand that there are "strong" and "weak" dependencies of course
Andrew NenakhovMaybe if we get rid of weak not too important links, graph would be easier to digest
ZashI think we had this discussion already, about not being able to advance XEPs that depend on Experimental or Deferred. And then https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html was made Draft
flowI think it is ok, but I also believe that the terms of XEP states could be improved. Some people wonder why 'Draft' is an XEP which got past experimental
Andrew NenakhovYes, Draft does not look like very advanced stage of standard lifecycle from the outside