Ge0rGmoparisthebest: SamWhited might know the right people there...
neshtaxmpphas left
lskdjfhas left
wurstsalathas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Nekithas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
larmahas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
karoshihas joined
larmahas left
lskdjfhas left
larmahas joined
alacerhas left
lskdjfhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lnjhas joined
larmahas left
lskdjfhas left
rtq3has left
goffihas joined
Sevejonas’, what kind of changes can move a XEP to Deferred state?
Ge0rGSeve: no changes for a year
wurstsalathas joined
SeveGe0rG, yes, but can changes in the document move it to Deferred? Just trying to understand the following sentence: "Only substantial, non-editorial changes count as activity (or updates) for the purpose of considering moving a XEP from or to Deferred state." What kind of changes can move a XEP to Deferred?
Ge0rGSeve: none
Ge0rGSeve: that sounds like an unfortunate wording
ThibGhas left
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
SeveGe0rG, thank you, I just wanted to check just in case https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/780/files
neshtaxmpphas left
Ge0rGSeve: ah, it actually does have a meaning: editorial changes don't count when checking whether to move *to* Deferred
alacerhas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
lnjhas left
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
SeveGe0rG: may be too early for me then! I'll check it out later, on my bike. Thank you :)
Ge0rGDon't read and drive!
olihas joined
mikaelahas joined
APachhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
andyhas joined
mikaela> No DoX servers on there yet though :)
What is DoX? I thought the X was to denote T/H without typing longly?
Oh, DNS over XMPP?
jonas’Seve, the point is, editorial changes do *not* count when considering whether to move a XEP to deferred. I.e. if it has received editorial changes (but no substantial, non-editorial changes) over 12 months, it still moves to deferred.
ThibGhas joined
blablahas joined
nycohas left
lskdjfhas joined
larmahas joined
blablahas left
neshtaxmpphas left
lskdjfhas left
nycohas joined
mtavareshas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
kokonoehas left
blablahas joined
kokonoehas joined
rtq3has joined
404.cityhas joined
404.city Supporthas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
rtq3has left
lskdjfhas joined
Sevejonas’, that way is understandable, but I'm not sure if the problem here is my poor English or the wording. I will try to check it again on the evening today and see, because I'm still so-so with the "from or to", but my poor English has many chances to be the problem here :)
larmahas left
jonas’heh
jonas’I can fix the wording either way
jonas’please leave a comment on the PR so that I don’t forget
KevFor the little it's worth, the wording seems fine to me.
KevBecause there are changes from and to deferred, and the type of updates done affects both.
blablahas left
flowBut isn't question if the wording is fine for people with less knowledge about how the process works. And obviously it already confused people. If it can be improved so that it is easier to understand, then we should
jonas’(and I will)
jonas’Kev, I’m still not convinced that the things XEP-0001 says about versioning are sufficient to simply refer to that from the text, because it doesn’t at all mention how editorial changes affect versioning, AFAICT
KevIndeed, isn't that the point? That editorial changes are out of scope of the process. They don't need approval, they don't need 'Updated Versions' (in XEP-0001 speak), they don't trigger moves from Deferred, etc.
blablahas joined
flowIs it part of the process specification that they don't need approval and stuff?
G0s+has joined
KevIt's part of xep 1 that immaterial changes to Draft don't need approval, yes.
ZashOh, here https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2007-March/002057.html
Zash> Ralph -1 pending removal of service discovery section. Peter to remove and publish version 0.3.
ZashSo, ask if ralphm remembers what the reasoning was
ralphmLet me think.
neshtaxmpphas left
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
ralphmI'd have to look at the diffs and discussion logs.
wurstsalathas left
ZashDoesn't seem to be any logs from 2007 in the current archive tho
ralphmDoesn't mean I don't have them.
ZashI would guess that it makes sense to just always stamp on delay since the receiver should ignore what they don't understand
ralphmMaybe also because it is a format that can also be at a different level than as the child of a stanza.
ralphmI'll look into it later, when back home
neshtaxmpphas joined
alacerhas left
lskdjfhas left
ralphmStill remote, but seems the log files at logs.jabber.org have 404'd since 2007, though there was always an index. Maybe intosi or Kev can comment on this.
typikolhas joined
flow> Zash> I would guess that it makes sense to just always stamp on delay since the receiver should ignore what they don't understand
flowthen we should rename it to timestamps
wurstsalathas joined
ZashWhen *delayed*, not always
flowbut then I need to check if my service would add <delayed/> by doing disco, no?
flowbackground is https://medium.com/p/48806d283e6e/info
ZashYou know who did it by looking at the @from attribute
larmahas left
ZashIt seems sevral people seem to want to use delayed delivery for a generic timestamp thing. I think you need a new XEP with different semantics for that.
flowI receive a message stanza, how do I know if it got delayed or not? If there is no <delay/> tag on it then it may also because the service does not add them at all
alameyohas left
alameyohas joined
typikolhas left
ZashWell then you don't know.
neshtaxmpphas left
moparisthebestservice discovery doesn't change that does it?
APachhas left
flowmoparisthebest, if the service announces the feature and if it is specified that it will add <delay/> if it does so
flowI always felt that it would have been better if we hand't done <delay/> but <timestamp/>
flowakin to what you'll find in your mail headers
moparisthebestso you are trying to distinguish between "server announces delay but not marked delayed so it definitly wasn't delayed" and "maybe it was delayed maybe it was not" ?
andyhas left
flowmoparisthebest, yep
ZashWhy haven't you submitted a XEP about it?
ZashYou mean like trace headers, ie Received?
moparisthebestI wouldn't advise showing "maybe it was delayed maybe not" to users, that kind of thing would anger them
moparisthebest"XMPP sucks, can't even tell if it was delayed or not"
ZashINSTANT MESSAGING
flowZash, yes, like 'Received', I always expected that such a XEP does not has a chance of getting accepted
moparisthebestI think it'd be better to always assume not delayed, then if a user complains, blame it on their network connection :D
flowbut I would possibly try anyway
Zashflow: I want the part where it records the security status of the connection it received from
moparisthebestso a "I promise it was encrypted but may be lying" element Zash ?
flowZash, good point, so we could sneak in timestamp by a generic "trace" extension xep
alameyohas left
flowwhich also records more metadata about the connection the stanza was received
moparisthebestisn't e2e vastly superior there, aka "I promise was encrypted via this cryptographic proof"
flowmoparisthebest, depends on your goal
flowit is mostly interestant for statistic and debug use cases, but not for protection/security
flow*interesting
Zashmoparisthebest: It would be for debugging primarily, which also means it probably doesn't need to go on every stanza
ZashCould go on a modified ping of some sort
flowmeh, but I want my timestamps on every stanza
Zashflow: Take 203, reword the semantics, submit, ???, PROFIT!
flowbut the ping thing is interesting, that way you could record the stream information of every involved stream in both directions
ZashAlso, I'd wanna be careful with stuff that's added on every stanza
flowtrue, but there is a need for timestamps and xep203 commonly gets misunderstood by people https://medium.com/@les92raf/oh-i-get-that-right-xep-0203-can-serve-as-timestamp-xep-cb20020e8104
flowbut maybe re-adding disco to xep203 and explicitly pointing out the use-case as "timestamp XEP" is sufficient
XSF Discussion - 2019-04-09