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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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