XSF Discussion - 2019-07-15


  1. jonas’

    lovetox, Daniel, https://github.com/horazont/muchopper/issues/3

  2. Neustradamus

    Nice updates from Lance! - https://github.com/legastero/stanza/issues/253#issuecomment-511376612 -> https://github.com/legastero/stanza/blob/master/docs/Supported_XEP_Formats.md, if your projects have not, do not forget to add it - https://github.com/legastero/stanza/issues/295#issuecomment-511376975 <- SCRAM-SHA-256...

  3. Neustradamus

    Someone knows if M-Link supports SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS)? https://www.isode.com/whitepapers/scram.html "SCRAM is designed to be used with any hash algorithm, and so can evolve with improving cryptography. The first generation of SCRAM deployment is being used in conjunction with SHA-1, and migration to SHA-256 is anticipated."

  4. Neustradamus

    Please inform me if your projects are not in this list, and if there are improvements: https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/issues/2742#issuecomment-451468219 Thanks in advance :)

  5. lovetox

    sooo anyone oposed if we move the jdev chat to xmpp.org?

  6. eevvoor

    no

  7. jonas’

    I’m in favour

  8. ralphm

    Is there a point?

  9. jonas’

    conference.jabber.org is not reachable with modern libssl

  10. jonas’

    because the DH key is too small

  11. jonas’

    and conference.jabber.org is not indexable/disco#items-able with compliant implementations because it has MUC rooms with invalid JIDs

  12. jonas’

    (which is why jdev isn’t listed on search.jabbercat.org for example)

  13. ralphm

    And is Peter aware of the issue?

  14. jonas’

    yes

  15. jonas’

    I made them aware of the invalid JIDs a year back or so

  16. ralphm

    And?

  17. ralphm

    I mean the other thing.

  18. jonas’

    I didn’t bother after the lack of action after the invalid JIDs to be honest

  19. jonas’

    also, I think there’s some work in progress to move c.j.o to a different server implementation

  20. ralphm

    So the move would fix the issues?

  21. ralphm

    In any case, jdev is just a room somewhere. If people stop chatting there and go elsewhere, that's it. It isn't an XSF activity per se.

  22. ralphm

    I'd have expected the discussion over there, not here.

  23. pep.

    Well some people can't

  24. pep.

    because of DH issues

  25. ralphm

    Which, maybe, is being looked into?

  26. pep.

    maybe? It's been a few weeks/months already

  27. ralphm

    pep. so did you contact Peter then?

  28. pep.

    I don't have the issue personally

  29. ralphm

    Me neither, but that seems like a good first step. Either directly or on the jdev mailing list.

  30. pep.

    He's been contacted by jonas’ iirc

  31. ralphm

    He just said he didn't bother

  32. Zash

    About the MUC issue, not the DH issue.

  33. lovetox

    ralphm, peter was contacted

  34. lovetox

    and is aware, but there is no immediate plan to fix anything

  35. lovetox

    Also server has no MAM

  36. lovetox

    so yes setting the server up new will solve most problem, but thats a big IF, seeing that the situation is not ok for a long time

  37. lovetox

    i proposed xmpp.org not because XSF is here, but because the server is maintained by MattJ, and the server right now fullfills everything one wants from a MUC service

  38. ralphm

    I didn't hear about it before, but might have missed it.

  39. lovetox

    we can still wait a week maybe stpeter proposes some timeline, and if its in the near future like a month i would not bother switching server

  40. ralphm

    And sure, things not working or features missing that are kind of expected today, makes for good reasons to change

  41. ralphm

    lovetox: how was it raised? I didn't see an email about this.

  42. lovetox

    i wrote him a email personally

  43. ralphm

    Ah

  44. ralphm

    Was this recent?

  45. lovetox

    i didnt see the need to raise this in public, as he is the only admin?

  46. lovetox

    yes on 9 july 2019

  47. ralphm

    Well, yes and no. There are more people involved, but he's the main contact indeed

  48. lovetox

    thats why i proposed to still wait a week

  49. lovetox

    maybe he is swampd with work

  50. ralphm

    And it is holiday season.

  51. ralphm

    Not sure if a week is sufficient to get things resolved if it was only really raised less than a week ago.

  52. lovetox

    hm i dont expect things to be resolved in a week

  53. lovetox

    i just asked if there is a plan/timeline

  54. lovetox

    as i said i dont bother going through switching a well known muc if i know its ok in 2 months

  55. lovetox

    but if its 6 months, then i would siwtch

  56. lovetox

    actually fixing the DH issue would give us some more time

  57. ralphm

    Right