XSF Discussion - 2019-03-14

  1. Maranda has left

  2. Maranda has joined

  3. arc has left

  4. arc has joined

  5. UsL has left

  6. UsL has joined

  7. frainz has left

  8. frainz has joined

  9. frainz has left

  10. frainz has joined

  11. intosi has left

  12. frainz has left

  13. frainz has joined

  14. frainz has left

  15. frainz has joined

  16. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  17. pep. has left

  18. pep. has joined

  19. kokonoe has left

  20. kokonoe has joined

  21. tux has left

  22. tux has joined

  23. contrapunctus has left

  24. Half-ShotX has joined

  25. yon has left

  26. Half-ShotX has left

  27. Half-ShotX has joined

  28. contrapunctus has joined

  29. Half-ShotX has left

  30. Half-ShotX has joined

  31. Half-ShotX has left

  32. yon has joined

  33. Half-ShotX has joined

  34. Half-ShotX has left

  35. Half-ShotX has joined

  36. bowlofeggs has left

  37. Half-ShotX has left

  38. contrapunctus has left

  39. contrapunctus has joined

  40. Half-ShotX has joined

  41. Half-ShotX has left

  42. Half-ShotX has joined

  43. Half-ShotX has left

  44. lskdjf has left

  45. alacer has left

  46. larma has left

  47. alacer has joined

  48. Half-ShotX has joined

  49. Half-ShotX has left

  50. Half-ShotX has joined

  51. Half-ShotX has left

  52. kokonoe has left

  53. kokonoe has joined

  54. Half-ShotX has joined

  55. Half-ShotX has left

  56. alacer has left

  57. alacer has joined

  58. Half-ShotX has joined

  59. Half-ShotX has left

  60. Half-ShotX has joined

  61. Half-ShotX has left

  62. Half-ShotX has joined

  63. Nekit has joined

  64. Half-ShotX has left

  65. Half-ShotX has joined

  66. vaulor has left

  67. vaulor has joined

  68. Half-ShotX has left

  69. Half-ShotX has joined

  70. Half-ShotX has left

  71. contrapunctus has left

  72. contrapunctus has joined

  73. Half-ShotX has joined

  74. Half-ShotX has left

  75. Half-ShotX has joined

  76. arc has left

  77. arc has joined

  78. Half-ShotX has left

  79. Half-ShotX has joined

  80. Half-ShotX has left

  81. j.r has joined

  82. Half-ShotX has joined

  83. alacer has left

  84. alacer has joined

  85. alacer has left

  86. alacer has joined

  87. oli has joined

  88. Half-ShotX has left

  89. Half-ShotX has joined

  90. Yagiza has joined

  91. alacer has left

  92. alacer has joined

  93. Half-ShotX has left

  94. Half-ShotX has joined

  95. Half-ShotX has left

  96. Half-ShotX has joined

  97. Half-ShotX has left

  98. Half-ShotX has joined

  99. Half-ShotX has left

  100. efrit has joined

  101. arc has left

  102. arc has joined

  103. Half-ShotX has joined

  104. lnj has joined

  105. efrit has left

  106. Half-ShotX has left

  107. Half-ShotX has joined

  108. lnj has left

  109. karoshi has joined

  110. rtq3 has joined

  111. goffi has joined

  112. Half-ShotX has left

  113. goffi has left

  114. goffi has joined

  115. Half-ShotX has joined

  116. lnj has joined

  117. Half-ShotX has left

  118. Half-ShotX has joined

  119. blabla has left

  120. blabla has joined

  121. Half-ShotX has left

  122. waqas has joined

  123. j.r has left

  124. Half-ShotX has joined

  125. vaulor has left

  126. vaulor has joined

  127. Nekit has left

  128. Nekit has joined

  129. contrapunctus has left

  130. contrapunctus has joined

  131. intosi has joined

  132. karoshi has left

  133. karoshi has joined

  134. Half-ShotX has left

  135. Half-ShotX has joined

  136. Half-ShotX has left

  137. rtq3 has left

  138. andy has joined

  139. Half-ShotX has joined

  140. Half-ShotX has left

  141. blabla has left

  142. blabla has joined

  143. Half-ShotX has joined

  144. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  145. contrapunctus has left

  146. contrapunctus has joined

  147. Half-ShotX has left

  148. moparisthebest has left

  149. moparisthebest has joined

  150. Half-ShotX has joined

  151. contrapunctus has left

  152. contrapunctus has joined

  153. nyco has left

  154. nyco has joined

  155. contrapunctus has left

  156. contrapunctus has joined

  157. Half-ShotX has left

  158. Half-ShotX has joined

  159. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  160. nyco has left

  161. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  162. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  163. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  164. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  165. Half-ShotX has left

  166. frainz has left

  167. frainz has joined

  168. Half-ShotX has joined

  169. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  170. frainz has left

  171. frainz has joined

  172. Half-ShotX has left

  173. Half-ShotX has joined

  174. frainz has left

  175. frainz has joined

  176. nyco has joined

  177. frainz has left

  178. frainz has joined

  179. Half-ShotX has left

  180. Half-ShotX has joined

  181. mimi89999 has left

  182. frainz has left

  183. Half-ShotX has left

  184. frainz has joined

  185. Half-ShotX has joined

  186. frainz has left

  187. frainz has joined

  188. frainz has left

  189. frainz has joined

  190. Half-ShotX has left

  191. Half-ShotX has joined

  192. contrapunctus has left

  193. contrapunctus has joined

  194. Half-ShotX has left

  195. mimi89999 has joined

  196. Half-ShotX has joined

  197. Half-ShotX has left

  198. Steve Kille has left

  199. frainz has left

  200. frainz has joined

  201. kokonoe has left

  202. Half-ShotX has joined

  203. kokonoe has joined

  204. frainz has left

  205. frainz has joined

  206. pep. has left

  207. pep. has joined

  208. Steve Kille has joined

  209. frainz has left

  210. frainz has joined

  211. frainz has left

  212. frainz has joined

  213. vanitasvitae has left

  214. Half-ShotX has left

  215. Half-ShotX has joined

  216. vanitasvitae has joined

  217. Half-ShotX has left

  218. wurstsalat has left

  219. Half-ShotX has joined

  220. larma has joined

  221. wurstsalat has joined

  222. larma has left

  223. larma has joined

  224. rtq3 has joined

  225. yon has left

  226. frainz has left

  227. Half-ShotX has left

  228. frainz has joined

  229. yon has joined

  230. Seve

    One question about that `XMPP WG`, what would be the difference between the XSF and that?

  231. Seve

    Or would it be just like a bridge?

  232. ralphm

    zinid was questioning the usefulness of the XSF (to him)

  233. ralphm

    You'd have to read yesterday's logs

  234. Seve

    I was paying attention

  235. Seve

    Still, if he pursues to have that group be reopened, would the XSF and that group clash?

  236. ralphm

    I don't think so. Who do you think would be in that group?

  237. Half-ShotX has joined

  238. ralphm

    Also, it seems he's left these channels.

  239. Dele Olajide has joined

  240. oli has left

  241. Guus

    If there is benefit from having an IETF XMPP WG, we should consider doing it.

  242. Guus

    It was hard to deduce the arguments, though.

  243. Half-ShotX has left

  244. Half-ShotX has joined

  245. ralphm

    dwd mentioned something yestersay, unrelated to zinid, I think

  246. Guus

    I'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.

  247. ralphm

    That he thought might be useful to have the WG for again.

  248. debacle has joined

  249. ralphm

    No it was work already done at IETF

  250. Guus

    I don't think that the marketing angle in itself is enough to warrant this. XMPP already is an IETF protocol.

  251. Guus

    I 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.

  252. rtq3 has left

  253. Guus

    a) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF>

  254. Guus

    a) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF.

  255. Seve

    Aftear 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.

  256. Seve

    And also that he would expect the XSF to be more active regarding the direction of the protocol, writing XEPs and so on

  257. Guus

    The latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussin.

  258. Guus

    The latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussion.

  259. Seve

    Well, it was not clear enough the point of the discussion in my opinion :D

  260. ralphm

    I 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.

  261. Guus

    As 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.

  262. Guus

    ralphm 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.

  263. Half-ShotX has left

  264. Half-ShotX has joined

  265. Seve

    Yes, what ralphm mentions is what I though dwd was explaining

  266. Guus

    ralphm 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.

  267. Guus

    ralphm 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.

  268. dwd

    You can't form an XMPP WG in the IETF without some fairly explicit work to do (in IETF parlance, a charter).

  269. dwd

    Charters give the scope of the Working Group, and also a set of milestones - witth dates - that they try to meet.

  270. Seve

    Sounds efficient :O

  271. dwd

    There'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.

  272. Guus

    I 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.

  273. dwd

    Guus, FWIW, I would suggest we (the XSF) look into establishing a formal liaison with the IETF.

  274. Guus

    dwd what would that look like in practice?

  275. dwd

    Guus, Beyond that, the rest is a Council issue of what work we think might be better redirected to the IETF.

  276. ralphm

    Guus: 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.

  277. dwd

    Guus, https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/

  278. Seve

    And also what would we need to do

  279. ralphm

    dwd: yes, that's definitely interesting.

  280. dwd

    Seve, Write a charter, and get a relevant AD to be interested. That's all a WG needs.

  281. kokonoe has left

  282. alacer has left

  283. alacer has joined

  284. ralphm

    And people

  285. Guus

    I 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")

  286. dwd

    Guus, ralphm - I note that some guy called Matt Miller is already a Liaison Manager, it might be worth asking him on his opinion.

  287. Guus

    I'm not rejecting the thought outright, though.

  288. Guus

    oh, that's interesting 🙂

  289. ralphm

    dwd: why would we contact this random individual?

  290. kokonoe has joined

  291. ralphm


  292. Half-ShotX has left

  293. Half-ShotX has joined

  294. ralphm

    Or should I say, (-:

  295. dwd

    Previously 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).

  296. ralphm

    dwd: indeed

  297. Seve

    That'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.

  298. ralphm

    The standards JIG has a charter. It just doesn't have specific goals in terms of direction or timelines.

  299. dwd

    Seve, 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.

  300. Seve

    Haha ok :)

  301. Guus

    Seve 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.

  302. Seve

    Guus, 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.

  303. alacer has left

  304. dwd

    Seve, 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.

  305. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  306. Seve nods.

  307. Seve

    Thank you :)

  308. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  309. Guus

    dwd maybe make your case on the members list?

  310. dwd

    Seve, 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.

  311. ralphm

    I 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?

  312. Ge0rG

    I 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?

  313. ralphm

    If 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.

  314. ralphm

    Ge0rG: a more formalized relationship

  315. Half-ShotX has left

  316. Half-ShotX has joined

  317. yvo has joined

  318. matlag has left

  319. matlag has joined

  320. contrapunctus has left

  321. contrapunctus has joined

  322. Half-ShotX has left

  323. Half-ShotX has joined

  324. Seve thought we had that formalized relationship

  325. ralphm


  326. Seve

    But yes, good idea to move it to the standards list, ralphm.

  327. Half-ShotX has left

  328. Half-ShotX has joined

  329. Guus

    I think this is more of an organisational list than a standards discussion </pedantic>

  330. ralphm

    Guus: well, that list happens to be the venue for all XEPs, including procedural ones

  331. Guus

    ... we're going to use a XEP for this?

  332. Seve

    Guus, true :)

  333. ralphm

    That'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.

  334. Half-ShotX has left

  335. Half-ShotX has joined

  336. contrapunctus has left

  337. contrapunctus has joined

  338. ralphm

    Doing it as a XEP doesn't seem like a bad idea, to me, though.

  339. Guus

    I disagree, but don't object.

  340. rtq3 has joined

  341. ralphm

    A XEP is just our typical vehicle for formalizing protocols, best of practices, and things like SIGs, beyond what's in our bylaws.

  342. ralphm

    Even though the last P current stands for Protocol, I think that the previous meaning of Proposal was more apt.

  343. ralphm

    Because it is closer to how we've used them.

  344. Zash has left

  345. Zash has joined

  346. ralphm

    E.g. if you want to know what a SIG is and how to form one, I'd direct you to XEP-0002.

  347. ralphm

    If you want to know what the Registrar does: XEP-0053.

  348. Guus

    although tempted to discuss this further, I think we should first decide on the color of the shed in which bikes are stored temporarily. 🙂

  349. ralphm

    I'm not really discussing, I'm just relaying how things have been done.

  350. ralphm

    There are procedures for creating new functions and where to discuss them.

  351. oli has joined

  352. ralphm

    Even 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.

  353. wurstsalat has left

  354. Half-ShotX has left

  355. Half-ShotX has joined

  356. Andrew Nenakhov

    ralphm, 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

  357. ralphm

    Yeah, and XEP-0385 doesn't even reference XEP-0372 (no pun intended).

  358. ralphm

    I agree XEP-0372 needs quite some love.

  359. ralphm

    I think the people involved have been focussing more on MIX, discussions on which caused References to be specified during last year's Summit.

  360. Half-ShotX has left

  361. Half-ShotX has joined

  362. Ge0rG

    References is a nice idea, but it lacks any description of how to practically implement it

  363. Half-ShotX has left

  364. Half-ShotX has joined

  365. Guus

    "We welcome your PR"

  366. ralphm

    As I said, the document needs work. I might pick it up.

  367. Guus

    Converse has the mention bit, which I like.

  368. Guus

    it's used with @<tabcomplete> (or when clicking on a user name)

  369. ralphm

    Does it mark that up some way?

  370. Guus

    sure ralphm

  371. Guus


  372. ralphm

    In protocol, I mean

  373. Guus

    but the mention bit is probably the most straightforward

  374. Half-ShotX has left

  375. igoose has left

  376. igoose has joined

  377. Guus

    Other than what's described in the XEP you mean, ralphm ?

  378. Guus

    The 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"/>

  379. ralphm

    Oh, you are already using References?

  380. ralphm


  381. Guus

    yes, Converse does.

  382. Half-ShotX has joined

  383. contrapunctus has left

  384. contrapunctus has joined

  385. Ge0rG

    It doesn't contain a reference to who is mentioned?!

  386. Guus

    That seems to be true

  387. Guus

    probably because it's used for markup only.

  388. Guus

    I'll raise an issue

  389. Half-ShotX has left

  390. Ge0rG

    Because the markup is the easy part. How to actually reference other entities is the hard part.

  391. lskdjf has joined

  392. Guus


  393. bowlofeggs has joined

  394. Half-ShotX has joined

  395. kokonoe has left

  396. kokonoe has joined

  397. ta has left

  398. Ge0rG

    Guus: you can get the xml colored by using ```xml as the block prefix 😁

  399. edhelas has left

  400. lumi has left

  401. Half-ShotX has left

  402. Half-ShotX has joined

  403. Guus

    you underestimate my level of lazyness, Ge0rG .

  404. Guus

    but, there

  405. Guus

    it made me add newlines too

  406. Ge0rG

    Guus: oh, sorry! 😉

  407. Half-ShotX has left

  408. ralphm

    One obvious thing would be an xmpp URI to the real JID

  409. Half-ShotX has joined

  410. andy has left

  411. Half-ShotX has left

  412. andy has joined

  413. Guus

    Unless in an anonymous MUC

  414. Ge0rG

    There are no anonymous MUCs. But you can obviously reference the full JID of the occupant

  415. Ge0rG

    Except this is prone to the same problems we can't solve with LMC already, where occupant identity may change in between

  416. Half-ShotX has joined

  417. ta has joined

  418. Half-ShotX has left

  419. Half-ShotX has joined

  420. Guus

    which for references might be less of a problem, as it's a reference that's valid only at the time the reference was made.

  421. Guus

    (not that that buys you anything)

  422. rtq3 has left

  423. Half-ShotX has left

  424. Half-ShotX has joined

  425. Ge0rG

    The interesting thing is what to do with such an occupant reference.

  426. Ge0rG

    And the really really interesting question is how to reference other messages.

  427. Half-ShotX has left

  428. andy has left

  429. j.r has joined

  430. Half-ShotX has joined

  431. Half-ShotX has left

  432. rtq3 has joined

  433. j.r has left

  434. ralphm

    Right unique IDs for messages, and some way to, probably, embed that in URIs

  435. neshtaxmpp has left

  436. andy has joined

  437. contrapunctus has left

  438. contrapunctus has joined

  439. Ge0rG

    With MAM, we could use the archive ID. But that only works for rooms, not for private chats...

  440. Ge0rG

    And obviously we need a URI scheme for messages

  441. Ge0rG

    All the important things that are missing from the XEP

  442. alacer has joined

  443. alacer has left

  444. alacer has joined

  445. andrey.g has left

  446. ThibG has left

  447. ThibG has joined

  448. neshtaxmpp has joined

  449. andrey.g has joined

  450. alacer has left

  451. ralphm

    I'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.

  452. ralphm

    But, again, I agree that the References spec is in its early stages.

  453. Dele Olajide has left

  454. Zash has left

  455. Zash has joined

  456. alacer has joined

  457. 404.city has joined

  458. 404.city has left

  459. alacer has left

  460. alacer has joined

  461. Guus


  462. Guus


  463. ralphm bangs gavel

  464. Zash

    Oh the memories

  465. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  466. ralphm

    Who? What?

  467. Guus


  468. Guus

    what's on trello

  469. Guus

    (maybe MattJ, Seve mentioned he'd try to make it but was unsure, nyco apologized)

  470. ralphm

    waiting for number 3

  471. Guus

    Which is kind of why I mentioned candidates by name.

  472. ralphm

    I guessed

  473. MattJ


  474. Guus


  475. Seve half around

  476. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  477. ralphm

    Who can do this? Someone from the floor?

  478. rtq3 has left

  479. Guus

    hargh. I just got called by daycare - my kid has a fever, need to pick her up in a few moments.

  480. ralphm

    ok, no worries

  481. Guus

    I can stick around for one or two short topics, but 10 minutes max

  482. ralphm

    2. Server outage

  483. ralphm

    I guess I'll start with this one then

  484. ralphm

    Guus asked for a post-mortem on the outage over the weekend.

  485. ralphm

    There's been some back and forth about this on the iteam and board mailinglists

  486. neshtaxmpp has left

  487. Guus

    I'm grateful for everyone that pitched in to help resolve the issue.

  488. ralphm

    A 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?

  489. ralphm

    Guus: indeed

  490. neshtaxmpp has joined

  491. Guus

    Most of that depends on how important we deem the continuous availability of services to be.

  492. ralphm


  493. Guus

    if we can live with unexpected outages, then I don't see a need (maybe a desire, but no need) to change things.

  494. MattJ

    I think generally having our website be available at all times is a need, we lost GSoC because of it one year

  495. ralphm

    It depends. We once missed out on GSoC because of an outage, but other than that it is mostly inconvenient.

  496. MattJ

    If this situation had been worse, or similarly timed, it could have had the same effect

  497. ralphm


  498. Guus

    the GSoC issue was horrible, but also a very unlikely combination of things

  499. Kev

    Well, that was the wiki, rather than the website.

  500. MattJ

    Kev, same server, no?

  501. Kev

    The website is trivially mirrorable.

  502. Kev

    The wiki would be more work to make resilient.

  503. ralphm

    Kev: sure, but unfortunately Guus didn't get an answer on what was affected, yet, so we're shooting in the dark a bit.

  504. moparisthebest

    as far as "website is always available" you could just slap cloudflare in front of it :'(

  505. Kev

    Everything except mail, pretty much.

  506. ralphm

    Kev: right

  507. ralphm

    So what can we do to help?

  508. Guus

    moparisthebest I think everyone can think of possible improvements. Let's first see if improvements (which take effort to realise) are needed.

  509. Kev

    Help depends what we want out of it vs. the effort.

  510. Kev

    The 'gsoc outage' was a case of us doing something daft.

  511. MattJ


  512. Kev

    This one, as far as we've seen, was an unexplained server wibble.

  513. ralphm

    Kev: sure, but it could be that you have already made plans, but lack time, or money, or skills.

  514. MattJ

    Oh, you mean the backups, not bringing the server down

  515. Kev

    Running unchecked code on a production machine.

  516. Kev

    xmpp.net brought it down during the gsoc outage. But that's another story.

  517. Kev

    We 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.

  518. MattJ

    iirc the xmpp.net server used to be separate (?)

  519. MattJ

    I agree that this is part of a broader issue with iteam currently

  520. Kev

    No, the observatory was on the same server as the wiki, and brought the server down by DoS, essentially.

  521. MattJ

    e.g. we used to have a list of XSF infrastructure. That list still exists, but is years out of date.

  522. Guus

    apart from trying to improve things: what is the state of our hardware? Is it in need of replacement?

  523. MattJ

    I don't think we have a central record of who has (or should have) access to what systems

  524. Kev

    I think our most critical bit of infrastructure is the website.

  525. MattJ

    or disaster recovery plans

  526. MattJ

    If atlas went down, I'm not sure where we'd begin with replacing it

  527. Kev

    If we're willing to throw a little money at it, or othersponsorship, or whatever, we could easily docker swarm that so it's resilient.

  528. Kev

    But I'm more or less out of action today, ill, so I'd be better having that discussion another time.

  529. MattJ

    Why docker swarm when there are numerous easier ways to host a static website?

  530. Kev

    Or those.

  531. ralphm

    Kev: that's ok. Do you want to schedule a time for a next chat on this topic?

  532. MattJ

    Which brings us to Peter's questions

  533. waqas has left

  534. waqas has joined

  535. contrapunctus has left

  536. contrapunctus has joined

  537. ralphm

    I'd be happy to talk to Edwin tonight (around our rehearsal) to see what we could do.

  538. Guus

    One thing that I'd like to discuss (later)

  539. Guus

    if 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.

  540. ralphm

    Shall I take this up this (broad) topic together with iteam?

  541. Kev


  542. ralphm

    (instead of all of Board)

  543. mimi89999 has left

  544. Guus


  545. Guus

    I do need to leave now

  546. mimi89999 has joined

  547. ralphm

    Thanks Guus

  548. Guus


  549. Guus


  550. mimi89999 has left

  551. mimi89999 has joined

  552. ralphm

    In that case, with Seve half around, I'm not sure if that counts as quorum.

  553. MattJ

    I'm fine with ending

  554. ralphm

    2. AOB

  555. Dele Olajide has joined

  556. ralphm

    There's one thing I'd like to mention.

  557. waqas has left

  558. waqas has joined

  559. waqas has left

  560. ralphm

    There 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.

  561. waqas has joined

  562. Seve wishes to be on the loop of this

  563. waqas has left

  564. waqas has joined

  565. ralphm

    But I learned that zinid is no longer persuing https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-car.html with the XSF.

  566. ralphm

    And chose another approach.

  567. waqas has left

  568. waqas has joined

  569. ralphm

    I think that means it is no longer going to be resubmitted, so the Editors are aware of this.

  570. ralphm

    That's it for me.

  571. MattJ

    Same here

  572. ralphm

    2. Date of Next

  573. ralphm


  574. ralphm

    (this is item 3)

  575. ralphm

    4. Close

  576. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  577. ralphm bangs gavel

  578. MattJ

    Thanks ralphm

  579. andy has left

  580. waqas has left

  581. UsL has left

  582. edhelas has joined

  583. j.r has joined

  584. Dele Olajide has left

  585. Dele Olajide has joined

  586. UsL has joined

  587. j.r has left

  588. j.r has joined

  589. alacer has left

  590. kokonoe has left

  591. kokonoe has joined

  592. j.r has left

  593. Dele Olajide has left

  594. Dele Olajide has joined

  595. j.r has joined

  596. rtq3 has joined

  597. 404.city has joined

  598. rtq3 has left

  599. Dele Olajide has left

  600. rtq3 has joined

  601. j.r has left

  602. lumi has joined

  603. Seve

    Hey guys, sorry, the train was going through a tunnel and lost connection

  604. ralphm

    Long tunnel

  605. Dele Olajide has joined

  606. Seve

    ralphm: I didn't press enter and I realized now :(

  607. j.r has joined

  608. 404.city has left

  609. waqas has joined

  610. Guus

    > Long tunnel Or slow train.

  611. kokonoe has left

  612. kokonoe has joined

  613. moparisthebest

    anyway 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

  614. moparisthebest

    could also just host it on github pages and let them worry about it, still using xmpp.org domain

  615. Kev

    The main issue with github pages is https. Unless LE has changed things like that.

  616. Nekit has left

  617. MattJ

    HTTPS works with Github pages, if you satisfy some requirements around DNS

  618. MattJ

    which is to use a CNAME, or an A/AAAA specifically, I forget which - it's in their docs

  619. MattJ

    and 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

  620. Zash

    Can't CNAME xmpp.org

  621. moparisthebest

    yea I know github pages can do https, haven't looked at the details

  622. 404.city has joined

  623. alacer has joined

  624. benpa has left

  625. Matthew has left

  626. uhoreg has left

  627. Half-Shot has left

  628. ralphm

    -> iteam room

  629. benpa has joined

  630. uhoreg has joined

  631. Half-Shot has joined

  632. Matthew has joined

  633. wurstsalat has joined

  634. alacer has left

  635. ThibG has left

  636. ThibG has joined

  637. edhelas has left

  638. nyco has left

  639. dwd has left

  640. kokonoe has left

  641. 404.city has left

  642. kokonoe has joined

  643. edhelas has joined

  644. nyco has joined

  645. Dele Olajide has left

  646. Andrew Nenakhov


  647. Yagiza has left

  648. Andrew Nenakhov

    Drew a simple diagram how xmpp standards depend on each other

  649. Andrew Nenakhov

    Didn't list all xeps, just those mentioned in compliance suites , and some we're currently interested in

  650. Andrew Nenakhov

    Service 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.

  651. Andrew Nenakhov

    But still, picture doesn't look pretty. Probably, if we list only "strong" dependencies, it'll look more clear.

  652. ralphm

    You may want to try doing this with graphviz/dot.

  653. ralphm

    Maybe there's already a script in the xeps repo

  654. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well I was looking for a fancy tool for my managers and to test started drawing the first thing that came to mind.

  655. Andrew Nenakhov

    Got carried away a big 😂

  656. ralphm


  657. Andrew Nenakhov

    But there are obvious formal problems, like 0280 carbons dependency on deferred 0296

  658. Steve Kille has left

  659. Steve Kille has joined

  660. Maranda has left

  661. Maranda has joined

  662. Nekit has joined

  663. lorddavidiii has joined

  664. wurstsalat has left

  665. waqas has left

  666. kokonoe has left

  667. wurstsalat has joined

  668. kokonoe has joined

  669. flow

    Andrew Nenakhov, why is that a (formal) problem?

  670. Andrew Nenakhov

    Because when you build a set of rules, subsequent rules must be based on valid predecessors.

  671. lorddavidiii has left

  672. flow

    What makes xep296 invalid?

  673. Andrew Nenakhov

    It's not invalid, it's deferred

  674. flow

    It is not like that it is marked as such or obsolte

  675. Andrew Nenakhov

    Deferred kinda means 'not ok'

  676. flow

    Andrew Nenakhov, I don't think that this is the case

  677. flow

    It just means nobody worked on it in a while

  678. Zash


  679. Andrew Nenakhov

    It's not even listed by default when you go to extensions page.

  680. Zash

    Is that meant to be XEP-0297?

  681. Zash

    Ie Stanza Forwarding

  682. Zash

    Carbons uses that, but it's not listed in the dependencies

  683. andrey.g has left

  684. flow

    Andrew Nenakhov, possibly, but that doesn't change the meaning of "deferred"

  685. andrey.g has joined

  686. flow

    Zash, yeah, looks like a off-by-one

  687. Andrew Nenakhov

    flow, English is not my native language, and vocabulary gives translation to Russian that is roughly similar to rejected.

  688. flow

    Andrew Nenakhov, think of "postponed"

  689. flow

    Oxford defined it as "Put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone."

  690. Andrew Nenakhov

    Postponed, like, indefinitely )

  691. flow

    Possibly, but that only means that it was not explicitly marked as obsolete

  692. mimi89999 has left

  693. mimi89999 has joined

  694. Andrew Nenakhov

    Anyway I don't think it's ok when subsequent XEPs have deferred dependencies. Also very bad marketing.

  695. Andrew Nenakhov

    This all does not look clear at all.

  696. Andrew Nenakhov

    I understand that there are "strong" and "weak" dependencies of course

  697. oli has left

  698. Andrew Nenakhov

    Maybe if we get rid of weak not too important links, graph would be easier to digest

  699. m has joined

  700. Zash

    I 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

  701. flow

    I 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

  702. lorddavidiii has joined

  703. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes, Draft does not look like very advanced stage of standard lifecycle from the outside

  704. waqas has joined

  705. waqas has left

  706. Maranda has left

  707. Maranda has joined

  708. igoose has left

  709. igoose has joined

  710. oli has joined

  711. debacle has left

  712. Zash


  713. dele has joined

  714. m has left

  715. Zash

    Sure looks like a typo and it was meant to be 297

  716. waqas has joined

  717. dele has left

  718. Andrew Nenakhov

    Lol )

  719. Andrew Nenakhov

    I thought it was weird, yes )

  720. ralphm

    Andrew Nenakhov: on the other hand, SMTP, currently at RFC 5321, is Draft, too.

  721. flow

    thankfully we use numbers to reference the XEPs…

  722. ralphm

    There are only very few documents that IETF has beyond that.

  723. flow

    ralphm, surely just because someone else (IETF) does it the same way isn't a good argument?

  724. flow

    if you look at it that way, we only have a handfull of internet standards

  725. Andrew Nenakhov

    ralphm, true. But matrix's documentation is nearing 1.0.0! See the difference? )

  726. Zash

    The main difference is that the IETF gives documents a new RFC number when they advance

  727. flow

    the rest are just documents waiting for comments :)

  728. Dele Olajide has joined

  729. wurstsalat has left

  730. rtq3 has left

  731. ralphm

    Zash: well, there's a level beyond Draft and that's Internet Standard.

  732. rtq3 has joined

  733. Zash

    Isn't it Internet-Draft (number of iterations) -> Proposed Standard (given RFC number) -> Internet-Draft (thing-bis) (iterations) -> Internet Standard (new RFC number)

  734. Zash

    Where we do ProtoXEP -> Experimental (iterations) -> Draft -> Final

  735. Zash

    And the number is issued earlier

  736. ralphm

    Zash: it's about the label, not that it is a new document

  737. Zash

    ralphm: Hm?

  738. flow

    Zash, nearly, as far as I understand there is an additional step after RFC number assignment, which makes it an Internet Standard

  739. flow


  740. ralphm

    Andrew Nenakhov: hah, we've had XMPP 1.0 since 2004.

  741. waqas has left

  742. waqas has joined

  743. flow

    Zash, ahh wait, you are right

  744. flow

    there appears to be a new number requirement

  745. ralphm

    Zash: that Andrew was talking more about the 'weight' of the status of a spec. Experimental, Draft, Final, etc.

  746. ralphm

    For marketing purposes

  747. Zash

    ralphm: So it boils down to the word "draft" not being as obvious on Draft Standard RFCs?

  748. moparisthebest

    since words mean nothing, or rather, different things to different people anyway, maybe we should just create made up ones for different statuses :D

  749. Zash


  750. Zash

    3920 and 6120 are both "Proposed Standard"?

  751. ralphm

    Zash: depending on how you look at it, IRC is either Experimental or Infirmational

  752. ralphm

    So, it seems no one really cares.

  753. Zash

    The way I looked at it, the IRC RFC was a dissapointment. Writing a server seemed to require more trial and error and squinting at packet captures to implement than XMPP.

  754. ralphm

    My point it is 25 years old and definitely a standard.

  755. Zash

    ralphm: Sure. People also consider expired, independently submitted internet-drafts to be IETF Approved™

  756. kokonoe has left

  757. waqas has left

  758. kokonoe has joined

  759. Nekit has left

  760. debacle has joined

  761. waqas has joined

  762. wurstsalat has joined

  763. waqas has left

  764. waqas has joined

  765. Wiktor has left

  766. arc has left

  767. arc has joined

  768. oli has left

  769. moparisthebest has left

  770. rtq3 has left

  771. moparisthebest has joined

  772. waqas has left

  773. Wiktor has joined

  774. oli has joined

  775. moparisthebest has left

  776. dwd has joined

  777. lovetox has joined

  778. ThibG has left

  779. ThibG has joined

  780. moparisthebest has joined

  781. rtq3 has joined

  782. blabla has left

  783. blabla has joined

  784. oli has left

  785. lorddavidiii has left

  786. ThibG has left

  787. ThibG has joined

  788. Maranda has left

  789. Maranda has joined

  790. waqas has joined

  791. yvo has left

  792. lovetox has left

  793. alacer has joined

  794. rtq3 has left

  795. rtq3 has joined

  796. m has joined

  797. waqas has left

  798. waqas has joined

  799. waqas has left

  800. ThibG has left

  801. ThibG has joined

  802. arc has left

  803. arc has joined

  804. m has left

  805. ThibG has left

  806. ThibG has joined

  807. Dele Olajide has left

  808. j.r has left

  809. j.r has joined