XSF Discussion - 2019-06-29

  1. alacer has joined
  2. arc has left
  3. arc has joined
  4. Lance has left
  5. alacer has left
  6. mr.fister has left
  7. lskdjf has left
  8. alacer has joined
  9. UsL has left
  10. UsL has joined
  11. alacer has left
  12. alacer has joined
  13. wojtek has left
  14. arc has left
  15. arc has joined
  16. alacer has left
  17. alacer has joined
  18. alacer has left
  19. lumi has left
  20. neshtaxmpp has left
  21. igoose has left
  22. neshtaxmpp has joined
  23. adityaborikar has joined
  24. adityaborikar has left
  25. igoose has joined
  26. adityaborikar has joined
  27. igoose has left
  28. igoose has joined
  29. david has left
  30. david has joined
  31. rtq3 has joined
  32. igoose has left
  33. rtq3 has left
  34. neshtaxmpp has left
  35. neshtaxmpp has joined
  36. rtq3 has joined
  37. Yagiza has joined
  38. rtq3 has left
  39. Douglas Terabyte has left
  40. rtq3 has joined
  41. rtq3 has left
  42. krauq has left
  43. krauq has joined
  44. igoose has joined
  45. wurstsalat has left
  46. neshtaxmpp has left
  47. intosi has left
  48. adityaborikar has left
  49. adityaborikar has joined
  50. rtq3 has joined
  51. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  52. igoose has left
  53. rtq3 has left
  54. arc has left
  55. arc has joined
  56. frainz has left
  57. frainz has joined
  58. intosi has joined
  59. intosi has left
  60. igoose has joined
  61. adityaborikar has left
  62. adityaborikar has joined
  63. valo has left
  64. valo has joined
  65. igoose has left
  66. valo has left
  67. valo has joined
  68. neshtaxmpp has joined
  69. jcbrand has joined
  70. lovetox has joined
  71. igoose has joined
  72. adityaborikar has left
  73. adityaborikar has joined
  74. igoose has left
  75. igoose has joined
  76. COM8 has joined
  77. COM8 has left
  78. wurstsalat has joined
  79. moparisthebest has left
  80. moparisthebest has joined
  81. lnj has joined
  82. debacle has joined
  83. karoshi has joined
  84. rtq3 has joined
  85. COM8 has joined
  86. COM8 has left
  87. Nekit has joined
  88. lumi has joined
  89. waqas has joined
  90. larma has left
  91. lskdjf has joined
  92. larma has joined
  93. jcbrand has left
  94. UsL has left
  95. rtq3 has left
  96. matlag has left
  97. matlag has joined
  98. jcbrand has joined
  99. debacle has left
  100. zach has left
  101. jonas’ can someone with URI knowledge tell me whether: `xmpp://xmpp-public.sotecware.net:5222/sotecware.net` would be an accurate way to write "Connect to sotecware.net using xmpp-public.sotecware.net on port 5222, skipping SRV record resolution`?
  102. jonas’ can someone with URI knowledge tell me whether: `xmpp://xmpp-public.sotecware.net:5222/sotecware.net` would be an accurate way to write "Connect to sotecware.net using xmpp-public.sotecware.net on port 5222, skipping SRV record resolution"?
  103. jonas’ it does not need to be generally understood that it means that, just whether the basic URI semantics are sane
  104. igoose has left
  105. waqas has left
  106. debacle has joined
  107. zach has joined
  108. valo has left
  109. j.r has left
  110. jcbrand has left
  111. igoose has joined
  112. igoose has left
  113. COM8 has joined
  114. COM8 has left
  115. rtq3 has joined
  116. igoose has joined
  117. igoose has left
  118. igoose has joined
  119. murabito has left
  120. murabito has joined
  121. igoose has left
  122. goffi has joined
  123. Yagiza has left
  124. pdurbin has joined
  125. mimi89999 has left
  126. mimi89999 has joined
  127. pdurbin has left
  128. igoose has joined
  129. lnj has left
  130. lnj has joined
  131. debacle has left
  132. igoose has left
  133. igoose has joined
  134. adityaborikar has left
  135. adityaborikar has joined
  136. waqas has joined
  137. david has left
  138. david has joined
  139. adityaborikar has left
  140. adityaborikar has joined
  141. adityaborikar has left
  142. Douglas Terabyte has left
  143. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  144. j.r has joined
  145. mimi89999 has left
  146. adityaborikar has joined
  147. rtq3 has left
  148. adityaborikar has left
  149. adityaborikar has joined
  150. moparisthebest jonas’: you don't need the domain if you have a jid to get it from
  151. mimi89999 has joined
  152. jonas’ moparisthebest, depends on the use-case
  153. moparisthebest You probably need a jid regardless don't you?
  154. jonas’ I want this for monitoring purposes, so I might want to monitor the up-ness and certificates and stuff of all possible server endpoints for a given domain
  155. jonas’ yes, the jid is behind the last ``/``
  156. adityaborikar has left
  157. jonas’ it’s just a domain, but still a JID :)
  158. jonas’ (in the specific case I’m thinking about, the client would never even authenticate, so there’s no need for a valid localpart)
  159. igoose has left
  160. jonas’ I’m trying to coerce this into a single URI/URL because I only have a single string to pass to stuff.
  161. Zash I have a thing that accepts domain@host:port (not an URI/URL)
  162. moparisthebest Ah ok, I made up my own similarish url syntax for this and ralphm yelled at me lol https://github.com/moparisthebest/jDnsProxy/blob/master/xmpp-dox/jdnsproxy.xmpp.resolver.properties#L27
  163. moparisthebest I also needed a single string
  164. ralphm 🤣
  165. jonas’ so maybe ralphm can now also yell at me?
  166. APach has left
  167. adityaborikar has joined
  168. lovetox_ has joined
  169. lovetox_ has left
  170. alacer has joined
  171. j.r has left
  172. j.r has joined
  173. ralphm Yelling As A Service?
  174. waqas Yaas
  175. Zash Real-Time Instant Yelling Service
  176. ralphm In general, yes, if it looks like a URI, just make it one. Especially if you're using existing URI schemes.
  177. mtavares has left
  178. ralphm Also, I generally don't like it when people use new schemes in production without having IANA registering it first.
  179. APach has joined
  180. j.r has left
  181. adityaborikar has left
  182. adityaborikar has joined
  183. j.r has joined
  184. mimi89999 has left
  185. ralphm jonas’: but specifically, no, you can't bypass SRV like that. It is explicitly forbidden: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-5.2
  186. waqas ralphm: That's pretty widespread these days, particularly on mobile platforms where apps register their own URL schemes. Almost all modern OS vendors allow apps to define these.
  187. ralphm waqas: doesn't mean I have to like it
  188. ralphm Or that it is a good idea
  189. alacer has left
  190. krauq has left
  191. waqas I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not necessarily fully sold on IANA registry being a registry of all allowed schemes.
  192. krauq has joined
  193. igoose has joined
  194. waqas (the same way I'm not sold on all possible XMPP protocol extensions requiring going through the XSF XEP process, the X for extensibility without relying on central authority is important)
  195. mimi89999 has joined
  196. adityaborikar has left
  197. ralphm Well, either it is a URI, which requires registration with IANA, or it is a fake.
  198. waqas Same for XEPs?
  199. ralphm Similarly, without a XEP, you cannot use urn:xmpp as a prefix
  200. waqas I'm comfortable with urn:xmpp, and I'd be comfortable with an app using "http:" to always mean the HTTP protocol.
  201. waqas But all URL schemes requiring registration is like requiring all namespaces even without the urn:xmpp prefix requiring the same
  202. ralphm If you don't use the XSF, you must use your own namespace, e.g. one with a http scheme with an auth part that points to your own domain. Or your own registered URN prefix.
  203. waqas It's the registration bit that I'm rejecting
  204. ralphm E.g. at Mediamatic, we had namespaces starting with http://mediamatic.nl/ns
  205. Zash `xmlns="xmpp:prosody.im/stuff"` :D
  206. ralphm waqas: why? URI/URL/URN as concepts are defined by the IETF, the set the rules.
  207. Zash Isn't there a DNS tree you can use somewhere? `urn:dns:example.com:whatever` ?
  208. waqas Is there a statement from the IETF classifying unregistered as fake?
  209. ralphm I haven't considered using xmpp: as a prefix for namespaces. I suppose you can, without auth part like that.
  210. Zash ralphm: Should be equivalent to http:// URLs as namespaces as far as anything is concerned, right?
  211. ralphm Indeed
  212. ralphm But without auth part (//) because xmpp URIs have specific syntax.
  213. Zash Tho the original topic was overlap between URLs and configuration syntax.
  214. Zash You could spare your sanity and imagine that they're not really UR[LI]s
  215. ralphm I think, waqas, you should read RFC 3986 and BCP 35.
  216. ralphm Zash: indeed
  217. ralphm E.g. by not using an explicit scheme
  218. Zash Is there something like vendor prefixes for schemes?
  219. ralphm Yes
  220. Zash As in, foocorp-thing://magic/syntax
  221. ralphm See BCP 35, section 3.8.
  222. ralphm Basically reversed domain
  223. ralphm Like org.example:
  224. Zash `com.foocorp.thing://blah` ?
  225. ralphm Also don't use // if it doesn't make sense
  226. Zash I distinctly remember that some platform required it. iOS maybe?
  227. Zash Leading to weird horrors like `xmpp:///stuff`
  228. waqas section 6 of BCP 35 is relevant
  229. ralphm That platform is wrong
  230. waqas For the most part, platform vendors and app authors have shown little to interest in BCP 35 though :)
  231. ralphm Zash: but I guess Apple has more issues like that, e.g. the recent openid connect thing.
  232. ralphm waqas: that doesn't mean you shouldn't
  233. waqas I mildly equate this to the bazaar ignoring the cathedral except for a few popular occasions :)
  234. ralphm I hold some pride in doing it properly.
  235. goffi has left
  236. waqas "properly" is up for debate
  237. ralphm It is not, though. If you can diverge from standards on a whim, why have them?
  238. lovetox has left
  239. Zash Anarchy! Chaos! Cats and dogs living together!
  240. waqas It would be ridiculous to follow all standards. Much like how we don't actually want clients to follow *all* the XEPs.
  241. ralphm There's a reason why we made xmpp extensible, so you can choose to do something else without violating specifications.
  242. waqas Indeed, and URI schemes are similarly extensible :)
  243. ralphm Yes, when folding its standards.
  244. ralphm Of course many people ignore standards
  245. ralphm (following)
  246. lovetox has joined
  247. Zash waqas: > (the same way I'm not sold on all possible XMPP protocol extensions requiring going through the XSF XEP process Where did you get this from?
  248. ralphm More than sometimes, not following a standard means pain later.
  249. waqas I think this is just fundamental disagreement, I disagree with following all possible standards being a requirement. I'm sure in any large pool of standards, I'd consider a significant portion to be inappropriate to implement.
  250. ralphm You generally don't have to implement all standards?
  251. waqas No, I do not
  252. Zash ralphm: "Pain for someone else" ?
  253. ralphm If you just follow XMPP Core, you can call yourself an XMPP application.
  254. ralphm If you want to use jabber:iq:roster, please follow what's in XMPP IM, though.
  255. waqas (technically you can call yourself that even when not following Core fully, which is true for most XMPP software, but I digress)
  256. ralphm You can, but you would not be truthful.
  257. waqas ralphm: I agree with that! Similar to how I agree followers of HTTP should follow the HTTP specs for the most part!
  258. waqas The world is a lie then. Point out any large code base implementing any large spec and I can probably show you it's a lie.
  259. waqas But anyway, this is going way offtrack :)
  260. waqas I'm cool with central registration being a MAY or SHOULD, but am fundamentally opposed to MUST, particularly for toy, experimental or private use cases, but in general too.
  261. waqas A world where MUST was e.g., a legal requirement would be a worst world, IMHO
  262. Zash There are usually recommendations for private namespaces and such
  263. COM8 has joined
  264. waqas And people SHOULD follow those when sane :)
  265. COM8 has left
  266. UsL has joined
  267. ralphm I think the text in the specs I linked are to be interpreted mostly as a strong SHOULD, but things will break if you have naming conflicts.
  268. waqas Sure, and in various situations that can be an acceptable tradeoff
  269. waqas Particularly in situations where anonymity is a requirement. Registration with authority generally translates into breaking anonymity.
  270. ralphm Except when it doesn't when later your internal thing became part of a public API and now somebody, usually you, is crying.
  271. waqas I imagine that's pretty rare. Most things end up registering when they become big, often turning into de facto standards, and not when they are initially created.
  272. waqas I can't recall if this was true for xmpp: too. Did it see usage before it was registered or after?
  273. ralphm I don't directly see how anonymity is a factor in choosing a URI scheme, especially if there's a defined way to do private extensions.
  274. ralphm No, xmpp didn't exist as such before interacting with IETF.
  275. Zash `jabber:` then?
  276. ralphm We had to grandfather a bunch of things, and the jabber prefix was indeed wrong.
  277. Zash I mean, was there ever a `jabber` URI scheme?
  278. ralphm We first changed that to http URIs at jabber.org, eg pubsub, then went on to URNs.
  279. waqas I'm curious if all the XMPP proprietary competitors have their protocols registered :)
  280. waqas They all have at least one each, that their mobile apps register
  281. ralphm You *don't* have to register your proprietary extensions.
  282. ralphm However, those can't use the urn:xmpp prefix compliantly.
  283. rtq3 has joined
  284. waqas Yep, and my point for URI schemes is that in practice anything not registered via IANA has been fair game for private use. With rare exceptions, the industry as a whole treats things that way.
  285. Zash Well, they get to enjoy their time boms then.
  286. waqas There are easily more than a single order of magnitude schemes out there in use vs what's in the IANA registry
  287. Zash Oh, `jabber` is registered? https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/perm/jabber
  288. adityaborikar has joined
  289. ralphm Yes retroactively
  290. ralphm And with all known uses from XEPs and RFCs
  291. ralphm Only
  292. Zash That's good.
  293. ralphm As I said: grandfathered
  294. Yagiza has joined
  295. adityaborikar has left
  296. COM8 has joined
  297. COM8 has left
  298. adityaborikar has joined
  299. pdurbin has joined
  300. COM8 has joined
  301. COM8 has left
  302. COM8 has joined
  303. rtq3 has left
  304. COM8 has left
  305. igoose has left
  306. COM8 has joined
  307. COM8 has left
  308. igoose has joined
  309. goffi has joined
  310. pdurbin has left
  311. debacle has joined
  312. adityaborikar has left
  313. rtq3 has joined
  314. Douglas Terabyte has left
  315. pdurbin has joined
  316. mimi89999 has left
  317. mimi89999 has joined
  318. Yagiza has left
  319. mimi89999 has left
  320. mimi89999 has joined
  321. mimi89999 has left
  322. mimi89999 has joined
  323. alacer has joined
  324. alacer has left
  325. alacer has joined
  326. lnj has left
  327. lnj has joined
  328. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  329. andy has left
  330. mimi89999 has left
  331. mimi89999 has joined
  332. pdurbin has left
  333. alacer has left
  334. mtavares has joined
  335. waqas has left
  336. Alex has left
  337. Alex has joined
  338. igoose has left
  339. igoose has joined
  340. debacle has left
  341. andy has joined
  342. Douglas Terabyte has left
  343. adityaborikar has joined
  344. igoose has left
  345. igoose has joined
  346. debacle has joined
  347. igoose has left
  348. igoose has joined
  349. adityaborikar has left
  350. adityaborikar has joined
  351. Yagiza has joined
  352. adityaborikar has left
  353. adityaborikar has joined
  354. igoose has left
  355. igoose has joined
  356. rtq3 has left
  357. rtq3 has joined
  358. edhelas https://twitter.com/matrixdotorg/status/1144918306211684352
  359. edhelas I think we should definitly do some benchmarks between our XMPP servers and Matrix servers on similar features
  360. Zash Which "we"?
  361. pep. The royal "we"
  362. edhelas Zash you and me
  363. Yagiza has left
  364. Zash Lies, damned lies, statistics, benchmarks.
  365. Daniel has left
  366. Daniel has joined
  367. sezuan has joined
  368. goffi has left
  369. sezuan has left
  370. Nekit has left
  371. arc has left
  372. arc has joined
  373. arc has left
  374. arc has joined
  375. sezuan has joined
  376. arc has left
  377. arc has joined
  378. UsL has left
  379. UsL has joined
  380. igoose has left
  381. igoose has joined
  382. andy has left
  383. lnj has left
  384. rtq3 has left
  385. sezuan has left
  386. UsL has left
  387. UsL has joined
  388. debacle has left