- rion has left
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- aj has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- UsL has left
- UsL has joined
- lskdjf has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- adityaborikar has left
- adityaborikar has joined
- david has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- Yagiza has joined
- afrogeek has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- david has joined
- Maranda has left
- Maranda has joined
- andy has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- rion has joined
- pdurbin has joined
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: how so?
- Nekit has joined
- APach has joined
- LNJ has joined
- pdurbin has left
- j.r has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- LNJ has left
- sezuan has joined
- UsL has left
- adityaborikar has left
- karoshi has joined
- Alex has left
- Alex has joined
- jonas’ has joined
- sezuan has left
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: it allows the server operator to derive the user's screen time in the xmpp client
-
ralphm
That has almost nothing to do with the GDPR.
- UsL has joined
-
ralphm
And if it has, there's legitimate interest for processing this information, namely for ensuring a particular feature. Actively using it to track screen time, rather than temporarily stalling traffic, however, would require permission.
-
ralphm
Finally, servers don't have control over why/when clients send CSI hints, and the specification leaves that entirely up to clients.
- sezuan has joined
- Steve Kille has left
- jabberjocke has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- sezuan has left
- Steve Kille has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- wurstsalat has joined
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: so "using it to track screen time" is the actual issue, yes. Also it's got potential implications in enterprise setups, where unions are very keen on not allowing anybody to measure the employees' activity times
-
ralphm
I understand completely, but that's not what CSI's purpose is. If you continue in that direction, there are many activities one could theoretically track to do that.
- adiaholic has left
-
ralphm
Now, if there was a dedicated protocol to explicitly relay user activity stats, that'd be different.
-
Ge0rG
Yeah, but data collection is not solely about the original purpose of the data
-
ralphm
There is difference in processing for legitimate purposes, processing it for analytics, combining it with other data, etc.
-
ralphm
And then if you store it, there are also concerns around retention and deletability.
-
ralphm
I personally think that the issue as you describe it is not a GDPR issue, unless the server is processing the information for more than the purpose of minimizing battery use.
-
Ge0rG
This is getting similar to the discussion we had about the clarification of stored message content
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I agree with that
-
ralphm
Well yeah, there, if you agreed that the server keeps an archive for you, then that's fine.
- APach has left
-
ralphm
And public channels have a clear way of finding this out before joining.
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: the question was whether the content is PII or even special category PII
-
ralphm
PII is an old term not valid for GDPR discussions. There, we have Personal Information, and that's broader than the US term.
-
jonas’
and article 9.1 stuff
-
ralphm
Personal Data, I mean
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: oh, I wasn't aware those are different things
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: oh yeah
- jabberjocke has left
- pdurbin has left
- APach has joined
-
ralphm
Even if you, for example, have a unique identifier for a person, linked to some data, but you don't know who that is, that's still considered Personal Data.
-
ralphm
So often, just anonimising might not be sufficient.
- murabito has left
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: the question was whether the content is Personal Information or even Special Categories of Personal Information
- murabito has joined
-
ralphm
Well, I think in this case, since the purpose of the protocol is not at all about knowing if somebody's screen is on, you don't get to the special categories. Especially since the server cannot know in which cases the client is going to send it.
-
ralphm
In principle CSI just says: hold that thought until I say when.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: but you know the client implementation from disco#info, and you can derive those things
-
jonas’
yes, but that is being actively evil
-
jonas’
purposes and such
-
ralphm
Right
-
jonas’
you *can* do it, but as long as you don’t, you’re fine
-
ralphm
E.g. not storing / logging it would be a good start
- murabito has left
- murabito has joined
-
ralphm
In any case of doubt, by the way, talk to lawyers.
-
jonas’
-ENOLAWYER
-
jonas’
lawyers are expensive
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: lawyers are there to _increase_ your doubt
-
ralphm
jonas’, Ge0rG seems concerned about corporations, they (should) have lawyers as well as data protection officers.
-
ralphm
Usually it is about three things: purpose, consent, and retention.
-
ralphm
I've learned that engineers, including myself, generally don't have sufficient legal knowledge to make proper assertions in this area.
-
ralphm
But I learned quite a bit over the last few years.
-
jonas’
ralphm, if that was true, the result would effectively be that we have to shut down all operations (free jabber servers and possibly even software development) right now.
-
jonas’
except maybe daniel, because he might be able to afford a lawyer
-
Ge0rG
While being an engineer as well, I've been doing a large chunk of GDPR consulting in the last two years or so
-
ralphm
jonas’: there are totally things an engineer can do: log as little as possible, or at least not continuously of you're not debugging an issue, only process information for the stated purpose, give control over retention, inform about what is stored/processed.
- eevvoor has joined
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I'm not saying you have to be a lawyer. I said 'generally' and 'when in doubt'.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: right
-
jonas’
hooking into the silence: I was thinking that we might want to set up a mentoring process for first-time XEP authors
-
jonas’
and I’d volunteer right away to be a mentor to those
-
jonas’
my main issue is with how to present this
-
jonas’
and where
-
jonas’
i.e. how to make people make use of that?
-
Seve
How that would be? would it be a document with guidelines and so? (It is a very good idea by the way)
-
ralphm
Well, getting in contact with an Editor before/during submission seems like a good first step in general.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I'd suggest adding a paragraph for prospective authors at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
-
Ge0rG
maybe linking to a wiki page that you maintain, listing best practices and mentors
- jubalh has joined
-
ralphm
XEPs 0143 and 0134 should be good starting points to highlight, as is XEP-0001.
-
jonas’
none of those is a good starting point
-
jonas’
sorry, but no
-
ralphm
Why?
-
jonas’
they describe processes from the inside, not from the outside
-
jonas’
I think?
-
jonas’
something like that
-
jonas’
there is a lot of information in there, but a lot of that also does not matter for when you’re first writing a XEP
-
ralphm
That doesn't make sense to me.
-
ralphm
How does it not matter?
-
jonas’
I’m trying to formulate what I mean
-
jonas’
I mean, those documents are nice and all to get your document in a reasonable state, but I don’t think they deal well with the experience a newcomer has or might have when submitting a XEP while not having had a lot to do with the community before
-
Vaulor
Aixo es el que vull veure
-
ralphm
Vaulor: English, please.
-
jonas’
ralphm, the mentorship things would be about the non-technical parts of the stuff, really. What interactions to expect on the mailinglist? How to properly process feedback? What to do with a rejection by council?
-
jonas’
none of that is, to my knowledge, clear from the XEPs you mentioned
-
Seve
Vaulor, hah, wrong tab, right? :D
-
ralphm
jonas’: right, I think that the suggestion by Ge0rG is a great one, except a proper page on the website itself would be nice. Noting some initial tips, suggestion to get mentorship with Editors, and then reference those XEPs as formal procedures and detailed guidance.
-
Vaulor
Yup, sorry wrong tab indeed
-
Ge0rG
a "proper" page is fine with me
-
ralphm
Vaulor: 🙃
- sezuan has joined
- eevvoor has left
- Mikaela has joined
- Douglas Terabyte has left
- Douglas Terabyte has joined
-
ralphm
jonas’: in any case: yay, go for it
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
jonas’
context: the Message Reactions XEP, I think the silence from the authors speaks for itself. I tried to reach out to them yesterday, no reply yet though.
-
Daniel
jonas’, what part about the process is unclear wrt to the reactions xep?
- adiaholic has joined
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
-
ralphm
Daniel: it is entirely unclear to me why it hasn't been accepted (yet?)
-
jonas’
Is your question still open after reading this, Daniel? > 07:33:30 jonas’> ralphm, the mentorship things would be about the non-technical parts of the stuff, really. What interactions to expect on the mailinglist? How to properly process feedback? What to do with a rejection by council?
-
jonas’
right, I don’t think the rejection was made clear and public in the thread even.
-
jonas’
that’s something council should probably work on
-
jonas’
(or maybe the editor)
-
Daniel
> Daniel: it is entirely unclear to me why it hasn't been accepted (yet?) yes. i kinda understand that. but that what raises the question on how 'mentorship of authors' can help with that
- edhelas has left
- edhelas has joined
- larma has left
-
Daniel
jonas’, i'm personally not really under the impression that the authors (of that particular xep) need help with any of these points
-
ralphm
Daniel: so was it indeed rejected? Where can I see this? I tried looking at the recent vote tallies and yesterday's meeting logs
-
mathieui
the council on reactions was one month ago, I think?
- Mikaela has left
- Mikaela has joined
-
ralphm
Why was it on the agenda (item 5) for yesterday's meeting then?
-
Daniel
wasn’t that retractions?
-
ralphm
Oh wait that agenda was an older one. Sorry
-
mathieui
actually that was exactly one month ago
-
ralphm
I see now that Kev vetoed it
-
Ge0rG
don't confuse reactions, retractions and references with each other.
- larma has joined
-
ralphm
I found the minutes of that meeting: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-August/036345.html
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
-
Ge0rG
this is where "post-factum mail tagging" could come in useful
-
Kev
ralphm: I followed that up with a long mail to the list with an offer to do the needful myself to remove my veto. Although that time has probably now passed as I had the cycles then and don't now.
-
ralphm
Well, maybe having explicit, separate, rejection notifications would help here. I thought we had that done before, or suggested, but I missed this.
-
Kev
Which is about as good as Council can do, I think.
-
jonas’
re XEP-0353: 15:17:20 dwd> I'm +1 for this. Seems widely deployed and sensible. Daniel claims otherwise on-list. Fight!
-
ralphm
Right, I am looking for that mail
-
ralphm
Oh, crap, it was buried in the thread of the initial submission. Sorry, Kev
-
flow
A pitty that we only require two implementations before a xep can advance only for 'final'
-
ralphm
flow: because we have that problem a lot?
-
Daniel
so reactions passed?
-
ralphm
Daniel: no
-
flow
ralphm: the problem that xeps advance without much implementation experience nor feedback? I think so
-
ralphm
flow: we were talking about accepting XEPs in the the first place.
-
flow
ralphm, I was responding to jonas' comment regarding xep353
-
ralphm
Which moved to Draft, right?
-
mathieui
Daniel, vetoed on list by Kev
-
flow
and regarding accepting XEPs: I really think we are missing a IETF I-D equivalent. Where people can just create a stable home for their ProtoXEP to work on
-
ralphm
I don't see why that's a problem. I have concerns about XEP-0353, but it is not set in stone.
-
ralphm
flow: we do, it is called proto xep
-
ralphm
And also
- Nekit has left
-
flow
ralphm, I'd argue we do not
-
Daniel
ralphm, you can’t really edit a protoxep tho?
-
Daniel
or can I? maybe i should try
- Nekit has joined
-
flow
Daniel, it's not really specified or at least promoted that you can
-
ralphm
Generally council should accept those. I understand that Kev tried to prevent chaos by not accepting Reactions at this stage, but I am not sure I agree.
-
flow
I guess you could PR against XEPs in inbox
-
flow
But if this is encouraged then we should promote it more
-
flow
Otherwhise establish something like xmpp.org/extensions/protoxeps/my-kewl-new-xep.html
-
flow
where authors could PR against without much review
-
Daniel
because I actually wanted to edit the aesgcm uri scheme one
-
Daniel
so let me try that and see what happens
-
flow
go for it :)
-
ralphm
If a XEP is not accepted, an author is encouraged to address the feedback. I don't see how you can have it reevaluted without submitting a new version to the inbox.
-
ralphm
Re-evaluated
-
ralphm
But again, I think in general most of this should happen in experimental.
-
Kev
ralphm: I note that Kev didn't really 'not accept' in practical terms, given that he was ready to make the changes right away so it could be resubmitted.
-
ralphm
I believe the concern with reactions specifically is that seems undesirable to have this end up in production clients in its current state
-
Daniel
the expected quality for an experimental xep varies between councils and moods
-
flow
What if I want to develop a protoxep without submitting it right away? Could I simply PR it into inbox?
-
ralphm
Kev: I appreciate that of course, but the end result now is limbo?
-
Kev
Yes, I wasn't anticipating the authors not taking me up on the offer.
-
Daniel
> I believe the concern with reactions specifically is that seems undesirable to have this end up in production clients in its current state I'm not sure that blocking it from becoming experimental will help that
-
ralphm
flow: eh, that's a good question
-
Daniel
i'd implement reactions now if it weren’t for other problems in Conversations
-
flow
Daniel, it probably does not prevent it, but then again, what's the gain for having it accepted if it does not prevent it?
-
ralphm
Kev: I don't notice that offer, so maybe they haven't either? Maybe we should make non-acceptance notifications explicitly a new thread.
-
ralphm
Didn't
-
ralphm
Daniel: even given the concerns?
-
flow
And why not raise the bar a little bit for experimental to not accept XEPs with issues *and* a solution?
-
Daniel
flow, that is an interesting question. probably stable home + discoveribility
-
flow
Daniel, well you could argue that stable home is already extensions/inbox/reactions.xml
-
flow
err .html
-
flow
And I'd say that it is a feature that it is, in its current state, not easily discoverable
-
ralphm
We've had tried discussion before, I think Experimental is that state, and adding another one just moves names around.
-
Daniel
ralphm, what if i don’t share the concerns? (to be clear we are talking very hypothetical here because i'm not going to implement it anyway any time soon)
-
Daniel
but i can see the point of 'my users want this now and it is good enough for me and i don’t want to wait for the very complex problem of archive message collapsing to be solved beforehand'
- debacle has joined
-
ralphm
I agree with Kev that there are issues, I don't like that we now have a proposal with issues that is not Expirimental and now people can't, you know, experiment. I also think it would be bad to have in production clients with the expectance of large changes, but YOLO.
-
Daniel
but if experimental is that state than reactions shouldn’t have been blocked?
-
ralphm
^
- Nekit has left
-
Daniel
> I also think it would be bad to have in production clients with the expectance of large changes I agree but i don’t think the xsf should try to prevent that
-
Daniel
because it won’t be able to anyway
-
Daniel
and the attempt has other problems
- Nekit has joined
-
Daniel
also 'experimental' comes with the warning of 'do not use this in production'
-
ralphm
My concerns: 1) Unclear what ids should be used, and if that works properly in all cases, particularly in MUCs. Document doesn't state it, and the single example seems to use the original stanza id. 2) Interaction with MAM. There are various situations where you can retrieve message from the archive without having the referred message. 3) There should likely be a summary/counts feature. 4) I'm not sure if I like the way updates are done.
-
flow
I still wonder why nobody hasn't simply wrote a quick "Reference Other Stanza" XEP, doesn't appear to hard. And would probably kickoff the discussion and steer it hopefully into the right direction
-
ralphm
Daniel: I agree that the XSF shouldn't block stuff implemented in clients when in experimental. I just think it is not a great idea. And I also think that we may need to move a bunch of things from Experimental to Draft.
- pdurbin has joined
-
mathieui
flow, that’s kind of 367 though?
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
mathieui
(except 367 is not enough for reactions)
-
flow
mathieui, possibly, but I think it is broken
-
flow
mathieui, why is it not enough for reactions?
-
Daniel
ralphm, https://dino.im/xeps/reactions.html#business-id?
-
ralphm
indeed, XEP-0367 would need some work, and maybe a rename, but this was discussed here before as a possible basis.
-
Daniel
regarding (1)
-
ralphm
Daniel: is this a progression on the not-accepted specification
-
ralphm
?
-
Daniel
ralphm, oh tbh i didn’t check
-
ralphm
Well, I don't think it is wise to discuss alternative documents that aren't somehow covered by our IPR
-
ralphm
policy
-
Daniel
i wasn’t aware that the documents didn’t match
-
flow
Another argument to establish an I-D equivalent for XEPs
-
Daniel
that link was just the first one to shop up in my browser history
- adiaholic has left
-
mathieui
flow, no support for updating or removing an element
-
mathieui
Daniel, the documents are strictly identical as far as I can tell
-
Kev
See, I was really thinking that what I was doing was the pragmatic thing to do that a) Got the XEP published ASARP b) Got us to a state where further XEPs could do consistent things c) It wouldn't be obviously harmful to have in production clients.
-
ralphm
Daniel: they don't seem to be different. And what I meant is that it is a bit vague even with that text. More examples would help.
-
Kev
I wasn't expecting it to end up with the protoXEP being abandoned instead.
-
Kev
I thought the outcome would be that the XEP got accepted a fortnight later, in a much better state.
-
Daniel
ralphm, sure. there are things that can and should be improved.
- mathieui pings larma about it
-
ralphm
Without insight into the author's intentions, I'm not sure if it has already been abandoned. Maybe vacation got in the way.
-
Daniel
on the other hand we also have experimental XEPs that are literally 60% TODOs
-
Ge0rG
Kev: in that case you should have just moved on with your offer to make a PR
-
ralphm
Having at least a response on Kev's extensive notes would help.
-
ralphm
Kev waiting for a response seems reasonable.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Hindsight is a harsh mistress.
-
Ge0rG
flow: IIRC, sending a PR against inbox will mean that the editors trigger a resubmission.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: indeed.
- lskdjf has joined
-
Daniel
Kev > Which is why I offered to the authors to fix this now so the XEP could be accepted, as I had some spare cycles at the time, but that offer wasn’t taken up. I very much want a reactions XEP published, and was willing to put the time in to make it happen. How would that fix have looked like?
-
Daniel
using attachments?
-
Daniel
(or just link me to the 'offer')
-
ralphm
Kev: do you foresee a clearing in your time? I'd happily collaborate on this.
-
Ge0rG
If I got the authors right, they talked to Sam about 0367 and got told that it's not acceptable for Reactions.
-
ralphm
Maybe they should instead come here or on list.
- eevvoor has joined
-
ralphm
Including Sam
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: maybe this is one of the non-obvious things for new authors that jonas’ was talking about earlier
-
ralphm
yeah
-
jonas’
and I don’t think all of those non-obvious things can be written down
-
jonas’
but someone who has more knowledge of the internal workings of the XSF and the process will be quickly able to answer it
- adiaholic has joined
-
jonas’
and it’d be good to have a person assigned to each newbie-proto-xep who’ll deal with that type of questions
-
ralphm
I like Sam a lot, but I don't think he's been aware of all the discussions that were had on this topic (and all other things concerning things 'attached' to messages).
-
ralphm
Also, Message Attaching, References, etc. all need work.
-
Kev
I think the easiest thing if Sam doesn't want Attaching to be used for this might be to either ask Sam to let someone else take over Attaching, or to submit a ~= identical XEP intending to be used more generally, and retire Attaching.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: what do you see missing from Message Attaching?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: let's hope nobody rejects that ~= identical XEP on the grounds of it being duplication of Attaching, then.
- adiaholic has left
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: particularly around how we all store and retrieve these things from archives
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I think that asking Sam would be the polite route, while Council could easily take over Attaching, assign it to anybody standing up for it and let it be the right vehicle.
- debacle has left
-
Zash
Maybe gather everyone at a Summit and reinvent all these message relation things from first principles? 🙂
-
Kev
I deliberately said 'ask', not 'reassign', yes.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: this is a hugely complex topic that's absolutely deserving its own XEP
- pdurbin has left
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: yes, but if we don't start to address it early on, this might be a lot of pain
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: we are already half-in into that pain.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I don't think we've barely scratched the surface.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: we have north of four different ways to reference one message from another.
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
-
ralphm
Zash: I've been toying with the idea of having a spec-writing-sprint on this indeed. The Summit is too far out.
-
Ge0rG
maybe the Reactions authors are actually right. We won't get rid of those legacy ways, and having four or five different legacy ID lookups in the server isn't such a big piece of work, compared to the other challenges.
-
Ge0rG
(I mean: the difference between having four vs five)
-
ralphm
well, isn't the text about ids in reactions not a copy-paste from XEP-0353?
-
ralphm
This alone is reason to think that one should use the other
-
Ge0rG
ITYM 0367
-
Daniel
well if we had (or can create in a timely manner) a general id referencing mechanism that we know for sure to be a one size fits all solution we can use that
-
ralphm
I meant 0367 of course
-
larma
I talked with several people about Reactions XEP as well as general purpose referencing. I personally think we are running in completely wrong direction with that right now (including the blocking of ProtoXEPs, but also with general purpose referencing in general), but as announced on the list, I am happy to do any changes to Reactions XEP or other XEPs needed to get it accepted if there was council advice what is the best/acceptable way to do it. Last status I am aware of is that there are at least two ways to do it and there is no consensus which is the right or better way
-
Ge0rG
Speaking of 0367, I think its biggest conceptual problem is that the payload to be attached is not inside of the <attach-to> element
-
Ge0rG
That makes it impossible to use <attach-to> as a general vehicle for a LMC to a message that is attached-to another message.
-
Ge0rG
(do I need to draw ASCII art?)
-
mathieui
Ge0rG, but then having it inside will break the LMC fallback for clients not implementing it
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I'd like to see that art, indeed. I think I understand what you mean, but not sure if it really is a problem.
-
Ge0rG
mathieui: right. bummer.
-
Daniel
to be fair the introduction of 367 even mentions emojis. so it seems like a somewhat good fit?
-
Daniel
and creating Message Attaching 2.0 that is 95% identical might only be more confusinig
-
Ge0rG
<message from=romeo id=1>cat-pic</> <message from=juliet id=2><attach-to 1/>awww, this is ctue!</> <message from=juliet id=2><attach-to 1/><attach-to 2><lmc/></>awww, this is cure!</>
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: ^
-
ralphm
larma: I didn't see your response to the comments by Kev on list, in the thread, or on the council minutes. Great that you want to move forward!
- linkmauve has joined
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: oh, you mean attaching with a body?
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: well, this is what we have threads for. I don't think I'd see what you have there as a valid case.
-
Daniel
i think the issue occurs when lmc uses attach-to
-
Daniel
then you don’t know which attach-to is which
-
ralphm
ah
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: attach-to is an element that's not embedding what you are attaching but going side by side with it. So if you reference two different messages in one, the recipient doesn't know the meaning of the individual attach-to elements
- adiaholic has joined
-
ralphm
I'm not sure if I'd like to see multiple attach-to elements in one stanza ever.
-
ralphm
So maybe, LMC (or hopefully a more general message editing proposal) shouldn't use attach-to. Storage wise it also seems different from attaching.
-
ralphm
LMC (etc) are basically versioning on an original message
-
larma
attach-to is *not* suitable for general purpose referencing in its current versions as it can not be used when two messages are being referenced for different reasons. It would work for the purpose of Reactions though, at least I don't see any conflict with existing XEPs at that point if its done (but one needs to be careful in the future about it)
-
Daniel
well if the content of the attach-to were to be a child of the attach-to element you could simply treat it as to indivudal attaches. but yeah i agree that lmc is different to attaching and therfor should not use attach-to
-
Ge0rG
Daniel: but if you stuff the payload into the attach-to element, you lose backward compatibility.
- eevvoor has left
-
Daniel
well for some things that's good
- eevvoor has joined
-
Daniel
because for reactions we don’t want a fallback anyway
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: what about delivery receipts or read markers? Are those suitable for <attach-to>? How many different reference mechanism are actually needed?
-
ralphm
XEP-0367 currently also says you can't have multiple.
-
Ge0rG
Daniel: who is "we"?
-
Daniel
Ge0rG, in that case the majority of people on the mailinglist
-
larma
If we can't / don't want use attach-to for LMC, we need something else than attach-to for the general purpose referencing for thin client MAM
-
mathieui
Ge0rG, most people who can envision how hellish a reactions fallback would be
-
larma
Because both LMC and Message Attaching should be attached in the thin client MAM usecase
-
Ge0rG
> Ge0rG, in that case the majority of people on the mailinglist 🤷
-
Daniel
putting the stuff inside the attach-to element would also limit what a MAM archive has to store
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I am not sure if receipts or markers are a good fit either, indeed. When I think of attaching I think of use cases currently covered by References, SIMS, reactions.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: yeah, so what's the cut-off point for use-case specific syntax vs. using a general attach-to vehicle?
-
Ge0rG
The current Attaching XEP is _obviously_ good for everything that appends visible content to another message.
-
ralphm
And MAM wise, you probably want entirely different handling between: 1) LMC/editing, 2) reactions, 3) References/SIMS, 4) receipts, 5) markers.
-
Ge0rG
but then again, a receipt checkmark icon is also visible content attached to the message.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I see the latter more as meta data than an attachment
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: let's see... 1) store all edits together, deliver them all together 2) store all reactions together with the message, deliver them all together 3) same as 1 and 2 4) _maybe_ send receipts on behalf of the archive; don't forward receipts from each client of the user because once is enough(?) 5) same as 4?
-
pep.
“ralphm: I also think it would be bad to have in production clients with the expectance of large changes” < it's probably been said already, but what goes into "production", whatever that means, is up to the dev and not the xsf.
-
larma
Btw, I'd also like to bring up the issue of SCE because we don't have enough complexity on this issue yet: When we have SCE and want to use thin client MAM, the reference must be outside of the encryption so that the server can attach. However the encryption usually also provides authenticity, thus the reference must also be inside the encryption. The thing outside the encryption should also carry minimal information, so should only be <ref id=A/> or similar as any information what kind of reference it is leaks information outside ot SCE (which kind of is its sole purpose). Additionally the server can't do any merging on content in SCE cases.
-
Ge0rG
Daniel: is conversations making any use of per-contact-device markers/receipts?
-
ralphm
pep.: I said I agreed with that indeed.
-
Ge0rG
larma: agreed. but there most probably will be a set of elements that a sending client must put both into and outside of SCE
-
pep.
“flow: I still wonder why nobody hasn't simply wrote a quick "Reference Other Stanza" XEP, doesn't appear to hard” < if you read the reactions thread, Marvin volunteered
-
Ge0rG
the interesting thing is when you put content inside of the <attach-to>
-
Ge0rG
...and if you read today's discussion in here, it IS hard.
-
pep.
And no it's not exactly 367. From what I understand 367 wasn't meqbt to be used how council is pushing it to be (quote from the author, Sam)✎ - adiaholic has left
-
pep.
And no it's not exactly 367. From what I understand 367 wasn't meant to be used how council is pushing it to be (quote from the author, Sam) ✏
-
Ge0rG
pep.: a ref to that quote please?
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: 1) Not sure you want to deliver all edits. Maybe just the last one. 2) Store together (probably a separate dimension), retieve a summary, when needing more info (like when hovering), retrieve them all. 3) I'm not sure actually 4/5) markers are interesting in that you may have a bunch in groups, and you may want summaries, like with reactions
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: so we need four different ways to reference messages, for the purposes of Future MAM?
-
ralphm
pep.: The goal of Council is to give guidance on protocol development. This might indeed conflict with an author's original intentions, and I am not sure if this is a problem.
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
ralphm
pep.: i.e. once a document is in the process, we rely on general consensus with guidance by council.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: well, I'd say that the id handling is the same for all of them, but how such things are processed is different. I'm not sure if it should all be forced into a single element.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: and yes, MAM handling itself is going to be much more involved than the currently naive single dimension.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: from a MAM service implementers point of view, I don't just want to know the relationship graph (IDs), but also the type of edge invovled, so that I can do useful processing
- adiaholic has joined
-
ralphm
yes
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: so maybe "this message is some kind of reference of that message" is only useful if you want a naive two-dimensional store where the original messages are stored as a relationship group
-
Ge0rG
but not if you plan the things you outlined above
-
pep.
“Ge0rG: pep.: a ref to that quote please?” < either I got it from the reactions thread from Marvin, or I heard it directly from Marvin who asked Sam when writing reactions
-
pep.
(Still catching up with messages on this channel)
-
Ge0rG
pep.: the last mails from Sam were purely sarcastic, it seems
-
larma
Ge0rG, what I wanted to say: the general purpose referencing XEP would have to have some kind of usage attribute on it, so we can do something like `<ref id=A usage=attaching /><ref id=B usage=lmc />` (not necessarily this combination, but I am certain it will happen that we want one message to reference two others). Now if we put these <ref />s with usage outside of encryption we are leaking information. I am arguing for the ref outside of the encryption being somehow different than the ref inside. As the ref outside may be manipulated by a MITM, it shouldn't be trusted by the recipient at all and be completely ignored. It should become a server annotation only, which is not relevant for the message as displayed in a client, but can be used for thin client message attaching (in which case a MITM attacker can only manipulate the message such that it is not displayed in thin clients at all, which they can anyway). I'd prefer if we somehow write up what will be the usecases of the general purpose referencing so that we can actually find its requirements, before we force XEPs like Reactions to use something that makes little sense in practice later on.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: well, I suppose the storage itself could be multiple tables or a DAG, or whatever. I'm not sure t.b.h., but the retrieval patterns differ.
- eevvoor has left
-
Ge0rG
larma: this is an interesting point in the current discussion ralphm and I have
-
pep.
Ge0rG: mails from larma
-
ralphm
larma: what is SCE again?
- adiaholic has left
-
jonas’
stanza content encryption
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: Stanza Content Encryption
- adiaholic has joined
-
pep.
420
-
Ge0rG
pep.: those don't count.
-
Ge0rG
pep.: I'm looking for a statement from Sam, directly.
-
pep.
Ge0rG: same
-
ralphm
Larma: I'm not sure about the various cases in-or-outside encryption. I'd expected you'd want to encrypt all the things.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: you can't encrypt for the MAM store
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: yes of course
-
Ge0rG
This is conflicting with "encrypt all the things"
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I'm not sure if having some bits encrypted and some not is a useful thing.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: nobody said it would be easy.
-
ralphm
I.e. I don't think having server side archiving mixes with e2ee
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: it has to mix
-
ralphm
Why?
-
Ge0rG
you could argue that you can't have a "thin e2ee client", but I think there are people doing OMEMO in Converse.js
-
larma
People will want to a) have e2ee and b) use MAM and thin clients. We must make sure that it works.
-
Ge0rG
personally, I think that XMPP and E2EE don't mix well, and that XMPP should be used in scenarios where E2EE is not wanted. But my opinion is very unpopular.
-
ralphm
I mentioned this before, I am a bit skeptical about OMEMO and e2ee in XMPP context in general. You can't have all the things, I think.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: we have to accept what the users want and try to make it work out
-
ralphm
larma: how, bar the protocols itself, do you think this is achievable?
-
Ge0rG
we already are the blackberry of instant messengers.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I haven't got any offers for narcotics yet.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: didn't you complain about spam just some days ago?
-
ralphm
yes, no narcotics :/
-
Ge0rG
I'm sure there were also offers for illegal drug markets.
-
Ge0rG
maybe you couldn't read them because they were encrypted with Russian.
-
ralphm
hm
-
larma
ralphm, e2ee works with thin clients if minimal thin client annotations are attached outside the encryption. You are not leaking a lot of information by that, but still get the advantage of thin clients
-
Daniel
Ge0rG, in my very personal experience a not insignificant amount of users are fine with the limited scope of omemo/otr/27 only encrypting the body
-
Daniel
i rarly get asked for sce
-
pep.
Daniel: do they even know?
-
ralphm
larma: you mean that the act of referring is outside the encryption, but not the payload of said referencing
-
pep.
What kind of user tells you that
-
larma
ralphm, exactly and also the reason for referencing should not be mentioned outside
-
ralphm
larma: that might theoretically work, but it is probably a pain for proper handling of all the use cases I mentioned above.
-
Ge0rG
> ralphm, exactly and also the reason for referencing should not be mentioned outside this conflicts with Smart MAM
-
ralphm
SMAM :-P
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: maybe a useful degradation would be "store all the grouped message in bulk, deliver them in bulk"
-
Daniel
pep., good question. i don’t know. the ones that are just using e2ee for the good feels probably not. but we don’t need to 'fix' it for them
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I guess.
-
Ge0rG
Given that meta-data kills, XMPP E2EE is a huge scam.
-
Daniel
other than that i reckon it is not 'unknown' that the existing e2ee methods don’t do sce
-
larma
Ge0rG, Not sure how smart your MAM should be, but if your server-side information is limited, obviously you cannot be super-smart
-
Daniel
Ge0rG, i'd argue that the meta data that kills is mostly the who with whom
- Nekit has left
-
Daniel
and not 'has read a message'
-
larma
Also IMHO this is mostly hypothetical, the smart MAM will probably be adopted as fast as MIX
-
Ge0rG
Daniel: speaking of which, somebody just complained over in prosody@ that their Conversations is sending a file encrypted via socks5 bytestream to gajim, but gajim doesn't decrypt it
- Nekit has joined
-
Ge0rG
larma: normally I'm the one with the pessimistic adoption rate estimations
-
ralphm
larma: standards development is a) not easy, b) not fast. MIX has a lot going for it, but these concepts are hard and people's time is limited. If somebody would be hire me to work on this full time, I would.
-
Ge0rG
yeah, can't we get our own cryptocurrency billionnaire sponsor?
-
Ge0rG
I'd be glad to work on XMPP full time as well.
-
larma
A "MAM delivering grouped messages in bulk" would work and is rather easy to implement both server and client side. It's not a perfect optimization, but it solves the problem of thin clients.
- aj has left
-
ralphm
And just to be sure, the reference itself should also be inside the encypted payload, to prevent spoofing, right?
-
Ge0rG
right
-
ralphm
Anyway, I am still curious: in which cases would one have to reference two different messages from one stanza?
-
Ge0rG
a type-less reference outside, and a typed reference (LMC / reaction / ...) inside
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: the current go-to example is an LMC of a message with a reference
-
ralphm
Yeah, I don't see that use case.
-
Ge0rG
why not?
-
Ge0rG
because you want a dedicated protocol for LMC?
-
ralphm
No
-
ralphm
I think that you'd either have loosely coupled messages in threads (using thread ids), or actual attachments. If you want to LMC the former, you can. I am not sure the latter would need to support edits.
-
ralphm
Other than, maybe retraction, which is still not LMC
-
Ge0rG
technically, LMC and retraction are very close
-
Ge0rG
except for the moderator use case
-
ralphm
But for retraction you can just refer to the thing you are retracting. You don't need the whole thing.
-
Ge0rG
so you mean a retraction lacks a payload?
-
ralphm
I think so
-
ralphm
Like in PubSub
-
Ge0rG
I'd actually like to see retraction re-worded as a payload-less LMC, but I see there are reasons against that
-
ralphm
I'd like edits instead of LMC
-
Ge0rG
OTOH, we could extend LMC with a @by attribute denoting who did the edit
-
ralphm
and retractions separate
-
Ge0rG
I'm using LMC as a synonym for arbitrary edits. The "last message" limitation is the worst thing about that XEP
-
ralphm
let's kill it then
-
Ge0rG
If I had unlimited time, I'd rewrite LMC into "Message Edits"
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: what would you do differently with "Message Edits", in comparison to LMC?
- Daniel has left
- Daniel has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
ralphm
Make sure it has the same id handling as the other things we've been discussing, lift the limitation on the last message, change the title?
-
ralphm
I /don't/ think we should support editing messages by others in any form. This is why I think we should have a separate thing for deletion.
-
ralphm
eh. retraction
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: speaking of ID handling, we haven't figured out yet all cases of how to edit a message that we didn't receive back from a MAM yet.
-
ralphm
Moderators should surely be able to retract others' messages
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I think all of this discussion hinges on figuring that out
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I think it's useful to have editing of messages by moderators.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: why?
-
Ge0rG
You could remove expletives for example. mod_pastebin could be implemented in terms of editing.
-
ralphm
I think that opens quite a can of worms
-
ralphm
Either a message is acceptable, or it isn't.
-
Ge0rG
Because we have a good server side mechanism to enforce what's acceptable, that can be used by moderators?
-
ralphm
I'm not thrilled about a way that allows moderators to edit random messages. It makes it hard to see whose message it was. I suppose you also need to be able to trust the MUC server in any case.
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
ralphm
I'd much rather have a situation where people are in control of their own words, and if that's not acceptable, the message is retracted in its entirety.
-
ralphm
That also makes it much easier to have edits override the original. If others can edit, you need to also be able to retrieve the original.
- adiaholic has left
-
Guus
Is having the XSF not wanting to deploy specific features reason to prevent a XEP that implements exactly that feature from being standardized?
-
Guus
I'm not liking content editing by third parties either - but should we therefor not allow such a XEP to exist?✎ -
ralphm
Reading back, it still isn't clear to me how Sam thinks XEP-0367 should be used, and how Council wants something else.
-
Guus
I'm not liking content editing by third parties either - but should we therefor not allow such a XEP to be standardized? ✏
-
ralphm
Guus: well, I don't think it is wrong for Standards JID to have an opiniated process.
- matkor has joined
-
ralphm
Guus: we deal with privacy and security concerns, so maybe yes that could mean we won't standardize a particular feature.
-
ralphm
Guus: and that in turn might mean that you'd have to have a private extension, or write an IETF draft
-
flow
> larma: "However the encryption usually also provides authenticity, thus the reference must also be inside the encryption." I am not sure about the "must" here. And I also think this is a good example for something we should not bother with at this stage. I do believe can't solve the metadata issues with e2ee in XMPP right now, and probably ever.
-
ralphm
flow: I have the same feeling about metadata
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
-
flow
\o/
-
matkor
Hi! By who's lack of activity https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0396.html is Deferred?
-
ralphm
matkor: usually this means the Author, but in principle 'all of us'
-
flow
matkor, everyone. As in, someone just needs to work on the XEP
-
flow
matkor, but why do you bother about it being deferred?
-
flow
if you implemented it, then please provide feedback
-
flow
ideally that leads to an update of the XEP, un-deferring it
-
flow
Re attach-to/reference: Why not simply have a <reference-ohter-stanza/> without childs which references at most one stanza regarding one concern?
-
flow
s/at most/exaclty/
-
matkor
flow, I am just newbie XMPP user trying to transfer files encrypted between gajim and conversations. Not sure what is "right way" to do it
-
flow
matkor, that's the question we ask yourselfs here daily: What is the right way :)
-
matkor
Seems Conversation uses XEP-0396 with success I wondered why gajim is lacking it.
-
Ge0rG
flow: "references exactly one stanza regarding one concern" so what do I do if I want to reference two stanzas regarding different concerns?
-
flow
matkor, the answer is usually because nobody implemented it
-
ralphm
flow: yes, I was just discussing with Ge0rG whether there are cases you'd need to refer to multiple messages, and I stated that I don't think there is one, really.
-
flow
Ge0rG, send two stanzas
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: still like to see that use case
- Dele (Mobile) has left
-
flow
or maybe it is not clear to me what "want to reference two stanzas regarding different concerns" means
-
Ge0rG
flow: what, if the same content relates to two stanzas in different ways?
-
flow
Ge0rG, send two stanzas?
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
-
flow
also, please provide a more-or-less real-world example
-
matkor
flow, sure, but there are usually reasons why sth is not implemented like a) there is better way, b) sth is obsolete
-
flow
otherwise it is hard to reason about it
-
ralphm
matkor: c) nobody has found the time, yet
-
flow
matkor, the most common reason is because nobody did it
-
Ge0rG
ralphm, flow: I don't have a convincing example at hand, but I'm pretty sure we'll end up wanting to edit a message that's attached-to another message.
-
flow
Ge0rG, edit as in? LMC?
-
Ge0rG
flow: yes
-
Ge0rG
flow: see my discussion with ralphm above regarding "edit" vs LMC
-
flow
Ge0rG, the LMC that message that is attached-to another message with the yet-to-be-invented generic attach-to mechanism
-
flow
*then LMC that
-
Ge0rG
flow: but I want LMC to use the generic attach-to mechanism!
-
Ge0rG
it's not generic if it doesn't cover LMC
-
flow
then bump LMC to do so
-
Ge0rG
flow: but then I have double references.
-
larma
`<message><body>this and that message</body><ref id=A start=0 end=4 /><ref id=B start=8 end=12 /></message>` = message referencing two other messages, although these references are probably not relevant at all for thin client MAM
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
-
flow
Ge0rG, double references?
-
Ge0rG
flow: two references in one message
-
flow
Where?
-
ralphm
larma: that is a good use case indeed
-
Ge0rG
flow: 1) this is an edit of my message X; 2) this is a reaction/attachment/whatever to message Y
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm sure Message References does cover that one ;)
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: except if you want to use XEP-0367 for doing referring to another messages.
-
flow
larma, how often do you reply in one mail to two mails in a mailing list? That is one of the seldom uses features of mailing lists and MUAs
-
flow
the mail protocol allows it, but is very seldom used
-
Ge0rG
flow: in the context of Message References, you can also reference users, URLs, etc.
-
Ge0rG
flow: so it would be perfectly fine to have a message with 64 references, containing the nickname of each other occupant of this MUC
-
flow
Ge0rG, probably, but that is not the context discussed here
-
Ge0rG
flow: if only we had thread references.
- wurstsalat has left
-
flow
We are strictly taking about referencing stanzas, and the question is: Do we want to introduce additional complexity by allowing one stanzas to reference more then one other stanza
- wurstsalat has joined
-
larma
flow, so you are proposing to change from "seldom used with XMPP" to "I use email instead because XMPP doesn't support it"
- pdurbin has joined
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: but only because 0372 lacks support to reference messages ;)
-
ralphm
There's a difference between pointing to a message with some id (which can be documented seperately), and use cases thereof: creating a secondary message that attaches to, or edits, a particular message, v.s. a separate message that wants to 'refer' to what was said before. FWIW, I'm not sure how to render larma's example.
-
Ge0rG
flow: I've given an example above.
-
flow
larma, no, I am saying that I never once in my life found myself in the situation that I wanted to reply two more than one "post" with a single "post"
-
flow
be it xmpp or mail
-
flow
and I believe this to be true for the majority of users
-
Ge0rG
I was multiple times in a situation where I wanted to reply to multiple mails from subthreads of the same thread. On standards@.
-
Ge0rG
Arguably, I'm not the majority of users.
-
flow
Ge0rG, then why didn't you do?
-
ralphm
I think larma is more like including hyperlinks
-
ralphm
larma's example
-
Ge0rG
flow: because I had no idea how.
-
larma
flow, But what does that imply? That we shouldn't be able to handle it on a technical level?
- adiaholic has joined
-
flow
larma, I don't believe the increased complexity is justified. Please note that I am strictly talking about referencing stanzas
-
ralphm
XEP-0372 has a way to include hyperlink references to URIs and we may want to construct a way to express a pointer to a particular message, either in private context, or in MUCs, but I don't think this is the same as the other use cases.
-
flow
Ge0rG, let's assume you didn't know how is because your MUA either does not provide the feature or because it is very well hidden. Then you can ask yourself why that's the case…
-
larma
`<message><body>look at that previous message</body><reply-to id=A /><reference-back-to id=B /></message>`
-
ralphm
I.e. you can still have a URI that points to an XMPP message, or a tweet, or a something else.
-
flow
that that URI potentially would not be processed by the message archive in any way, which is probably fine
-
ralphm
larma: we don't have reply-to, really, we have threads
-
ralphm
flow: indeed
-
Ge0rG
but nobody uses threads, so we should replace them with generic references.
-
ralphm
god no
-
larma
ralphm, we don't have X so we should never ever support it
-
Ge0rG
but if we do that, we have a convincing example of why it makes sense to have two references in one message.
-
flow
so we can have references with a exactly-one limit, which is processed by the message archive, and references with a one-or-more semantic, which are then not processed by the archive. That sounds like a good comprosmise
-
Ge0rG
references and References.
-
flow
although I am not sure if we need the one-or-more semantic references ever
-
ralphm
larma: not at all. We do have 20 years of prior work, and Ge0rG's assumption that nobody uses threads is probably not true.
-
Kev
It's probably not true, but it's pretty close to it.
-
ralphm
In the end this discussion is about the tightness of coupling
-
flow
larma, it's not "never support it", but be obviously should not design protocols with things that do not exists (and are not going to exists in the near future) in mind
- pdurbin has left
-
Ge0rG
flow: I disagree on this one. We should take into account the long-term delelopment of the protocol when adding new XEPs
-
Ge0rG
Otherwise, we end up with MAM and Carbons.
-
Kev
I can't catch up with all the backlog, but re: multiple references, I think you have one "This message follows on from this other message" reference (attaching, if you will), but potentially have a message reference many other things (some of which may be messages). e.g.: "re: Ralph's mesage<AttachmentReference> Hey @<Reference>Ralph, I agree, but did you see @<Reference>Ge0rG's <reference>message earlier?"
-
flow
Ge0rG, I did not say that we should not take the long-term development into account. But I have never heard of anyone talking about introducing reply-to
-
Kev
Which is why I'm quite happy with the idea of keeping attaching and references distinct.
- Nekit has left
-
Kev
Be it the two XEPs, or two different annotation types in a single XEP.
-
flow
Kev, does that matter much?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "follows on"
-
Kev
Yes, and I realise there's essentially three reference types, as you say that.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: but I assume 0372 is about showing a kind of hyperlinks inside of the body, whereas 0367 is about structural order of messages in the archive, delivery and display?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: three?
-
Kev
There's In-Reply-To, which was my first reference in that message, there's "Here are some other data relevant to the message", which were the others, but there's also "I am hanging this message off the other and it doesn't make sense in isolation", like Reactions and Editing/Correction.
-
ralphm
If a message is strictly about another message (this message is marking up that other message with hyperlinks, and I'm referring to characters 4-6 in this other message, References), Reactions, Edits, Markers, then I'd say we can come up with a generic mechanism for including such a singular reference. E.g. by using attach-id. If you want to point to other things loosely (again References, but the *target* of the link is elsewhere) you can use URIs or somesuch.
-
Ge0rG
In-Reply-To is what threads are for. But isn't a Reaction also In-Reply-To?
-
Kev
I am happy to limit 372 to the second type. I originally intended to cover everything, but I'm not dogmatic about that.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: you can model it all kinds of ways. In e.g. Slack, a textual reaction is a separate thing, that itself can have emoji reactions, marking up (references), etc.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm trying to understand all the implication, and maybe to find a good way forward.
-
Ge0rG
I think that the trinity proposed by Kev is a good approximation
-
ralphm
Kev: I'm saying that in 372 you have two types of things to refer to: 1) the plain text you are marking up, with char refs, 2) hyperlinks to tie to those hot texts.
- andrey.g has left
- Nekit has joined
-
Kev
(Incidentally, I don't think threads necessarily are fit for purpose, but I'm happy with just saying it's a distinct requirement and excluding it from discussion)
-
Kev
ralphm: There are two halves of that type of reference, yes.
-
ralphm
for 1) you need something like attachments, 2) URIs are great
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: for 1 you need what's written in 0372
-
Ge0rG
unless you want to make the marking-up a separate message from the original text
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Which I think has value.
-
Ge0rG
in which case, you attach-to the original message a set of reference-markups
-
Kev
e.g. a MUC service that annotates a message once it's fetched an async resource.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: this is about 'anchor' v.s. 'uri'
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: we can replace 'anchor' with 0367.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: now I'm totally confused.
-
ralphm
And then make it easier to mark up multiple parts of the text without having to repeat the anchor.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: to quote from 0372, which is anchor and which is uri? 1 <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' 2 begin='72' 3 end='78' 4 type='mention'
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: a link has two parts: the text you want underlined, the URI you want to jump to. Clear?
-
Kev
Let's see if I can avoid distraction long enough to gist some example thoughts.
- LNJ has joined
-
Ge0rG
5 uri='xmpp:juliet@capulet.lit'/>
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: so 2+3 is the anchor, and 5 is the uri
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: and if you want to make the <reference> a stand-alone message, you need to attach-to the list of <references> to the original message.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: XEP-0372 has two examples: one with a plain text included, there's no anchor here, because you are referring to the included body. The other has no body element, so you want to reason over some other, earlier message. So that example has an anchor attribute, and I'm saying that we can replace the latter with 0367.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: yes
- andrey.g has joined
-
ralphm
The former is section 3.2, the latter is 3.4.
-
Ge0rG
<message id=1><body>Hi Juliet</body></message> <message id=2><attach-to id=1> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin=3 end=9 uri='xmpp:juliet@capulet.lit'></reference> </attach-to></message>
-
Ge0rG
Something like this maybe?
-
ralphm
One flaw with XEP-0372 as it is now is that you can have a single message that has references with two different anchors. I think that's confusing and stupid, and having that replaced with XEP-0367 would be a lot cleaner.
- linkmauve has left
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: wwhen do you need two different anchors?
-
ralphm
Noever
-
Kev
https://gist.github.com/Kev/675475f30933b6d4f63bc9fce35bd29a
-
ralphm
Never
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: it's not long ago that you argued this would never be needed.
-
Ge0rG
Ah.
-
Kev
Ok, I'm suggesting we could do something like this, which is an advancement of 372/367
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
Kev
I think it's what Ralph's describing.
-
Kev
But if not, I've not understood and would like to :)
-
Kev
attach-to is the thing that could be 367, or something like it.
-
ralphm
yes
-
Ge0rG
Kev: the metatext inside your gist is confusing.
-
Kev
reference is the thing that's 372-ish.
-
ralphm
yes
-
Ge0rG
yes
-
Ge0rG
yes to what, actually?
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Which bit of metadata? Happy to update the list, I'm trying to balance brevity and clarity.
-
ralphm
a confirmation of Kev's interpretation of me
-
Kev
I guess I should add a reaction to that too, hang on :)
-
ralphm
Kev: do you have an opinion on nesting stuff inside attach-to v.s. sibling?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'd like to see an approximation of the XML for @target; I think I get the start/end things, even though they are distracting my OCD
-
Ge0rG
Kev: what do you think of the XML I posted above?
- Nekit has left
-
Ge0rG
it would also solve ralphm's issue with multi-anchoring
-
Ge0rG
and it would solve the issue with "dumb" MAM grouping.
-
ralphm
I don't have an issue with multi-anchoring, we should not have it.
-
Kev
ralphm: I do, I think it's nested.
- Nekit has joined
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Let me have a look at your XML, 2s (Gist's edit mode isn't working for me so I can't update my proposal for reactions).
-
Ge0rG
and you could do SCE with low effort:
-
Ge0rG
<message id=2> <attach-to id=1/> <ENCRYPTED><attach-to id=1><reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin=3 end=9 uri='xmpp:juliet@capulet.lit'></reference></attach-to></ENCRYPTED> </message>
-
Kev
Yes, I think your 12:04 XML is roughly equivalent to what I pasted in intent.
-
ralphm
Kev: but at most one, right?
-
larma
I'd also like to consider that there is semantically two types of attachments: Those that only the original sender and maybe a MUC (admin) can do (LMC, Retraction, Attaching?) and those that everyone can do (Reactions, replies)
-
Ge0rG
okay, "low effort" actually means you need to extract attach-to skeletons
-
Kev
Ah, hi larma.
- balu_der_baer has joined
-
Kev
Yes, I was thinking about ACL on this stuff earlier. I suspect this doesn't affect the wire protocol, but I'm aware a MUC might need to e.g. whitelist attach-to payloads.
- balu_der_baer has left
-
ralphm
larma: that is a good point, clients would need to check for this
-
Kev
https://gist.github.com/Kev/675475f30933b6d4f63bc9fce35bd29a updated
-
Ge0rG
<message id=1><ENCRYPTED><body>Helo tere</body></ENCRYPTED></message> <message id=2> <attach-to id=1/> <ENCRYPTED><attach-to id=1><lmc-marker/></attach-to><body>Hello there!</body></ENCRYPTED> </message>
-
flow
larma, good point
-
Kev
https://gist.github.com/Kev/675475f30933b6d4f63bc9fce35bd29a updated again
-
larma
Ge0rG, why is the body outside the attach-to? looks wrong to me
-
Ge0rG
larma: because of backward compatibility to pre-LMC clients
-
larma
But semantically what you wrote is "attach the lmc marker to the message and have a message with this body"
-
Ge0rG
the lmc-marker is meant to signify that.
-
flow
is backward compatiblity really something we should be concerned in this case?
-
Ge0rG
flow: yes.
-
ralphm
This is also why I wondered if it wouldn't be just as fine to have the attach-to be empty and a sibling.
- UsL has left
-
Kev
I think, in as far as we do fallbacks at all, we might have to consider having duplicate content here.
-
ralphm
Kev: you last example, message 6, would have backwards compat issues
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: it's not elegant, and only workable as long as you have at-most-one attach-to. Also it makes parsing in "Smart" MAM way harder.
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: still want that more than one example.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: just because we two can't come up with one, it doesn't mean there is none
-
larma
I think having attach-to a sibbling makes sense for those messages that do work as standalone, i.e. when you don't have the previous message (LMC, replies), but not for those that don't (reactions, retraction)
-
Ge0rG
larma: good point
-
Kev
Updated.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: what's wrong with my <lmc-marker/>?
-
ralphm
larma: for reactions, retraction, you wouldn't point to two different messages in one stanza.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Maybe just that I missed it in the flow.
-
larma
Kev, I totally dislike the duplication of the body for backwards compat
-
Kev
larma: Good, me too :)
-
Ge0rG
Kev: 12:12:49
-
larma
ralphm, that's for those that only point to one (attach-to, not references)
-
Kev
Ge0rG: That might work.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: what about reaction retraction?
-
Ge0rG
larma: 0372-style references are a different topic
-
Kev
Ge0rG: https://gist.github.com/Kev/675475f30933b6d4f63bc9fce35bd29a ?
- Syndace has left
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: you can just retract the stanza of the initial reaction, like message 4 in Kev's example
-
Ge0rG
Kev: yeah
-
larma
Kev, that's implying that you can only change the body with LMC
-
ralphm
Yes, that's what it is for.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: no, it's for any kind of payload.
-
larma
> Correction MUST only be used to change the logical content details of a stanza (e.g. the message body) and not to change the nature of the stanza
-
Kev
In this example, the attachment payload is still within the attachment element, which is good, it's just that it's then a pointer (careful not to say reference) elsewhere in the stanza.
-
Kev
You're both right.
-
Kev
Or all three.
- Syndace has joined
-
Kev
You can replace any payloads, but not rewrite the logical-type of the stanza.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: rename the element to <message-edit/>
-
Kev
You mean s/body-is-edit/message-edit/?
- Nekit has left
-
Ge0rG
Kev: yes. or maybe message-is-edit
-
Ge0rG
edited-message
-
Ge0rG
Bike shedding!
- Dele (Mobile) has left
-
Kev
These are details I feel don't need to be in a pseudo-exmaple.
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
-
Kev
What's really relevant, I think, is that the LMC instruction lives within the attach-to.
-
Kev
And that references can also live within an attach-to, as can reactions.
-
Ge0rG
And that we can have multiple attach-to elements with different payloads in one message!
-
ralphm
Why is that better than as a sibling (trying to get my head straight)
-
larma
I think having the message a sibbling of the attach-to but still put something inside the attach-to is semantically broken. Either the content of the attach-to is attached, or the sibblings, but this combination is just awkward
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: or we stop thinking we need multiple.
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: it makes processing for Smart MAM easier, because you don't need to analyze all the siblings and derive conclusions from their presence
-
Kev
ralphm: Clear hierachy. Sometimes you have 'extra noise' in stanzas, and it's much more convenient to be clear which bits apply where.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: I don't yet understand the need for multiple attach-to in a single stanza.
-
Kev
And yes, what Ge0rG says about nesting, too.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: nobody does, but in a year we've codified that There Can Only Be One, and somebody comes up with a compelling use case that can't be implemented any more
-
Ge0rG
Kev: 0184 would have been so much better with multiple payloads
-
ralphm
Kev: ok. I'm asking because back in the day, Blaine thought we should have originally gone with allowing Atom payloads next to the pubsub event wrapper, so that you could interpret the notification even if you didn't understand pubsub.
-
flow
Ge0rG, I am not sure that this means that it can't be implemented any more
-
Ge0rG
but nobody came up with the use case of offline message mass-acking
-
Kev
So SMAM would see an attach-to, and process its children (this is also a motivation for having the LMC body within attach-to, not external)
-
flow
I sure would require a ns bump
-
Ge0rG
flow: an ns bump and server-side conversion modules.
-
flow
point is, it is easy to go from a exactly-once to one-or-more semantic, but not the other way around
-
flow
or "easier"
-
Ge0rG
flow: or clients adding multiple versions of attach-to elements with different semantics into one message.
-
Kev
I'm not sure I'd say it was 'easy', but 'easier', yes.
-
Ge0rG
with the proposed semantics, is there a reason NOT to have multiple attach-to in one message?
-
ralphm
flow: well, since it moves into attach-to, you don't actually need to change the namespace for backwards compat. Of course older clients now see multiple messages, because they don't know attach-to
-
Kev
Ge0rG: If everything is properly nested, no. But if we allow leakage outside the attach-to, kinda yes.
-
flow
Ge0rG: and if we ever go from a esactly-once to a one-or-more semantic, you can say "told you so"
-
ralphm
flow: and then file bug reports for clients that only hanlde one
-
Ge0rG
> point is, it is easy to go from a exactly-once to one-or-more semantic, but not the other way around I think the opposite is true: if you have implemented parsing for N elements, and the message only may contain one, your code just works™
-
flow
"feature requests"
-
Kev
I do find flow's argument about ease of switching fairly compelling, though. We could publish with one, and see if anyone has a counter-argument while it' sexperimental.
- Nekit has joined
-
Ge0rG
Kev: "A receiving entity SHOULD be able to process multiple attach-to payloads"
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
flow
Ge0rG, I don't see how parsing is the heavweight thing yo'd have to change here
-
Kev
Ge0rG: That's the worst of all worlds, isn't it? :)
-
Ge0rG
Hey, I could edit all my messages to the same text with one message!
-
Ge0rG
flow: not parsing but interpreting.
-
ralphm
:headdesk:
-
ralphm
That's exactly what I want to prevent.
-
Ge0rG
flow: `AttachTo message.getAttachToPayload()` vs. `List<AttachTo> message.getAttachToPayloads()`
-
flow
implementing interpreation of exactly-once is probably way easier than one-or-more
-
ralphm
We've removed batch stuff in several protocols, like pubsub.
-
larma
If we have Unencrypted: `<message to=room from=ralph id=4><attach-to id=3><reaction>👍🏻</reaction></attach-to></message>` Encrypted: `<message to=room from=ralph id=4><attach-to id=3 /><ENCRYPTED><attach-to id=3><reaction>👍🏻</reaction></attach-to></ENCRYPTED></message>` This confuses me a bit: Is attach-to now to be semantically understood to a) attach sibbilings b) the full message c) the content of the attach-to element
-
Kev
larma: The content of the attach-to. Although in the case of LMC there's this open question about whether it's ok to referer out to the body or not.
-
Ge0rG
larma: what about <attach-to id=3><ENCRYPTED/></>
-
larma
Ge0rG, that would be the logical consequence, but then this is going to be terrible with legacy fallbacks
-
pep.
Kev: btw, nit (but not really), you don't need the "@" if you have References type mention.
-
Ge0rG
or rather: <attach-to id=3><external-sibling name="ENCRYPTED" ns="urn:xmpp:sce:0"/></>
-
pep.
(More garbage in body is never really welcome)
-
Ge0rG
and <external-sibling/> is a reference to the element name and xml:ns of the external sibling. MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY!
-
ralphm
pep: but it might be what the user typed
-
larma
`<message><attach-to id=A><ENCRYPTED>actual</ENCRYPTED></attach-to><ENCRYPTED>fallback</ENCRYPTED></message>` definitely sucks
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: the user's client should replace `@user` with `user` and a reference, then! :P
-
larma
Ge0rG, how would you do if you attach multiple subblings?
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: if could
-
Ge0rG
larma: have multiple <external-sibling/> elements. Or just define the ns if they all share one
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: I meant 'it could'
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm clearly thinking of the Slack UX here
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: Slack doesn't actually remove the @
- wurstsalat has left
-
Kev
Showing the @ is fairly usual in modern clients, I think.
- wurstsalat has joined
-
Kev
But I don't think this is the most important of the discussed details :)
-
ralphm
nah
-
ralphm
I like how this is shaping up.
-
Ge0rG
Kev, ralphm: am I overengineering things with <external-sibling>?
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: yes
-
Ge0rG
Much?
-
ralphm
yes
-
Ge0rG
A more pragmatic alternative?
-
Kev
I don't know, honestly.
-
Kev
I don't entirely understand why it needs to be alongside rather than nested, yet.
-
Ge0rG
I mean, the reference-tracking implications of that are really bad.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: the default would be nested
-
ralphm
I think having an empty attach-id is fine. If the encrypted payload is unwrapped, it can override it.
-
Kev
When would you external it?
-
Ge0rG
the only real use-case I see is message edits with legacy.
-
Kev
ralphm: I think an empty attach-id is pointless. It doesn't allow the archive to do anything useful, and other recipients are able to decrypt.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: it allows the archive to group related messages
-
ralphm
Kev: this was discussed arelier
-
ralphm
Kev: so that you could still have a limited two-dimensional grouping in MAM, even though you don't know about the encrypted bits.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: a thin E2EE client still benefits from that grouping
-
Kev
Ge0rG: I am seriously considering whether the best thing for legacy fallback might be to have <fallback/> inside the attach-to, and then clients will need to understand <attach-to/fallback> in order to show a fallback.
-
ralphm
I.e. retrieve all the encrypted attachments in one go
-
Kev
ralphm: But you can't have any grouping if there's no id, can you?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: what would <fallback/> mean?
-
ralphm
Kev: I mean no payload
-
Kev
Ge0rG: It'd be a plaintext that can be shown to the user if your client doesn't support that type of attachment.
-
Kev
So you need your client to understand attach-to/fallback, but once it does it can render a fallback sensibly for any other attachment type.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: wait, what?
-
ralphm
Kev: <message to=room from=ralph id=4><attach-to id=3 /><ENCRYPTED><attach-to id=3><reaction>👍🏻</reaction></attach-to></ENCRYPTED></message>
-
ralphm
Kev: MAM can know that this thing belongs to 3, but the real thing is inside
-
Kev
ralphm: Yes, that seems arguably ok. That's not an empty id though :)
-
ralphm
I didn't say empty id
-
Kev
"I think having an empty attach-id is fine" :)
-
ralphm
oh, I did
-
ralphm
whoops
-
Kev
If you didn't mean an empty attach id there, I don't know what you meant :)
-
ralphm
See, now I need edit
-
Kev
But yes, empty attach-to other than the id seems reasonable.
-
Kev
Suboptimal, but the best you can get if you want encrypted payloads.
-
larma
Is `<message id=A><body>First</body></message>`+`<message from=B><attach-to id=A><any-attachment /></attach-to></message>` then considered to be compacted to something like `<message id=A><body>First</body><attached from=B><any-attachment /></attached></message>` server-side? (the not so smart version of thin client MAM, the smart version would probably look into `<any-attachment />` and make some special handling for it)
-
Ge0rG
larma: could you please reformat your messages for the XML to begin at new lines, and maybe have some more structure?
-
Kev
I don't think it's compacted, no.
- rion has left
- rion has joined
-
ralphm
What do you mean compacted?
-
larma
ralphm, for the usecase of thin client MAM
-
larma
(which seems to be the main use-case of all of this after all)
-
Kev
The attach-to lives in its own right, linked to the first message, rather than replacing the message itself.
-
Kev
So you'd be able to query the attachments of a message through SMAM.
-
ralphm
larma: the only optimization a MAM server should do in this dumber case, is to ensure that when you retrieve a message, you get the attachments, too.
-
Kev
But, by default, when requesting through MAM you'd not get them.
-
Kev
Wait, what? :)
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: also vice-versa? When you query for an attached message, to receive the original first?
-
ralphm
larma: for the slightly smarter interaction, you probably don't want to retrieve all the things. Like with reactions, I'd say we'd have an element with a summary of reactions that's returned when you receive a message from MAM, but you need to query for all the individual ones to show who sent them.
-
larma
ralphm, OK makes sense to me, just want to ensure we are not missing the actual goal of all of this, as we already talked about over-engineering
-
ralphm
(like in Slack, you only see the counts, until you hover over them)
-
Ge0rG
but that means you need to deliver a map(reaction -> count)
-
ralphm
yes
-
larma
If we don't have any special semantic meaning of the content of <attach-to> I'd say it is better to not actually put stuff in there and make it always a sibbling
-
Kev
I'm happyish to punt solving how you do the archive queries to later, as long as we're confident we're encoding enough in teh protocol that we /can/ solve it later.✎ -
Kev
I'm happyish to punt solving how you do the archive queries to later, as long as we're confident we're encoding enough in the protocol that we /can/ solve it later. ✏
-
ralphm
Kev: oh, MAM is a going to be quite another topic, indeed
-
Kev
larma: I think we do have semantic meaning of the children of attach-to.
-
Ge0rG
larma: but we actually _want_ to have semantic meaning for the children
-
Ge0rG
just not generally.
-
Ge0rG
the two exceptions being E2EE and legacy Edits
-
pep.
“ralphm: Slack doesn't actually remove the @”, then the other side can put it back, but this has nothing to do on the wire.
-
Kev
pep.: And thus isn't worth discussing at the moment :)
- pep. still trying to catch-up with what's been said in here
-
larma
> but that means you need to deliver a map(reaction -> count) Ge0rG, yes this implies that the SMAM server understands reactions, has special handling of it and doesn't make use of the generic attach-to feature (which is kind of funny as we are mostly talking about the generic feature for exactly that usecase)
-
Ge0rG
larma: oh, of course it would rely on the generic attach-to feature
-
Kev
Sorry, why isn't SMAM using attach-to?
- zach has left
-
Ge0rG
it would just make better use of it
- zach has joined
-
ralphm
pep.: what I believe Slack does is always send the original thing (plaintext) and then updates to it to mark it up. On slow connections you can see this happening sometimes.
-
larma
Kev, Ge0rG, If the server needs to be able to understand what reactions means in `<attach-to id=A><reactions /></attach-to>` it could also just understand what reactions means in `<reactions id=A />`
- aj has joined
-
Kev
But it doesn't /need/ to understand what reactions mean, does it?
-
ralphm
larma: the idea is definitely that a MAM server with knowledge about attachments, will have a more efficient storage retrieval.
-
Kev
There may be value in it doing so, but it doesn't fall apart if it doesn't.
-
ralphm
RIght
-
larma
Kev, If it wants to build a map(reaction -> count) as suggested by Ge0rG it needs to understand
-
Kev
Yes. If it wants to be very smart, it can (and that is a good thing).
-
ralphm
Yes, it would be a discoverable feature.
-
Kev
But a somewhat-less-smart option is also available.
-
Ge0rG
larma: yes; but when we introduce another kind of attached-to payload, SMAM will automatically provide the grouping for it, just without an improved summary
-
Kev
And it's already smart enough that it can know that it's a {ns}reaction child in the attach-to, so a client that doesn't support those won't bother retrieving them, even if the server doesn't do the mapping and summary.
-
larma
So there is GMAM (grouped MAM) and SMAM (smart MAM). GMAM would rely on attach-to and SMAM would actually look into the reactions?
-
Kev
There's a hierachy of smarts, yes, if you want to call them GMAM and SMAM.
-
Kev
So SMAM is an improvement on GMAM is an improvement on MAM.
-
ralphm
You could have a way to say: give me all the messages (but without attachments), and then if it knows about reactions might include summaries. Then later you might retrieve the attachments.
-
Kev
Do I need to make another gist once I've thrown some lunch in the oven?
-
ralphm
Yes
-
ralphm
Doing the same
-
ralphm
Hmm bapao
-
Kev
This is very much not what I needed to get done today!
-
ralphm
Kev: yes you did. Your boss may complain to me.
-
ralphm
Also thank you
-
larma
I'd like to see an example of a message attachment being edited
-
Ge0rG
speaking of gists https://gist.github.com/ge0rg/a255cb521e45bbcb89573aa3218f0cd5
-
ralphm
larma: I don't really
-
Ge0rG
is that a valid summary of today's discussion? ^
-
Kev
"Can be sent by anyone" - unclear to me, more thought needed.
-
ralphm
larma: I'd rather see retraction and then a new one
-
Kev
"wide consensus, except for Ge0rG" - I think I'd like to hear if anyone has an example where it's beneficial; I'm not dead-set against it.
-
Kev
"i.e." - you mean "e.g." ;)
-
Kev
"an without a payload" - missing some words, I think.
-
Kev
But yes, I think that's pretty close to a summary, and is useful to capture, thanks Ge0rG.
-
larma
> You could have a way to say: give me all the messages (but without attachments) ralphm, but you'd actually want to also put some attachments directly, like message retraction, no?
-
Kev
I don't believe retraction should be an attachment.
-
Kev
Because it has different semantics from attachments, for exactly this reason.
- matkor has left
-
ralphm
Indeed. And retractions should be consolidated by the server
- matkor has joined
-
Kev
Ah, are we talking about retracting an attach-to, or retracting a source message?
-
ralphm
both, I suppose
-
Kev
I think they're very different.
-
larma
Kev, so you'd want always special handling for retraction, even in GMAM. Obviously makes sense in SMAM
-
larma
In case of SCE, do we encrypt the retraction element?
-
ralphm
Kev: they are, but the protocol doesn't have to be
-
Kev
ralphm: Yes, it does :)
-
Kev
Or, rather, makes a lot of sense to be.
-
ralphm
Kev: why? You can retract the stanza. If the stanza is an source message, then everything goes. If the stanza is an attach-to, then its payload goes?
-
Kev
Because I don't think that retracting attach-to by the id of the carrying stanza is entirely sensible.
-
ralphm
why?
-
ralphm
(is there a way for Gajim to show typing notifications in MUCs?)
-
Kev
So I think it makes more sense to have <message><attach-to><retract-message/></attach-to><message> for retracting a source message, and <message><attach-to type='remove'>describepayload</attach-to></message>
- Nekit has left
-
larma
I agree that one shouldn't reference attach-to messages at all
-
Kev
I'm just thinking of the pain of implementing things in the server archive at the moment. This is all going to be moderately painful (desirable features, so pain we have to accept, but still painful), and I'd rather keep the pain as low as we can. I believe that different paths for removing attachments and for redacting messages is simpler.
- Nekit has joined
-
ralphm
I was thinking more about: `<message><retract id='...'/></message>` for both.
-
pep.
Kev: on these channels, "the moment" is whenever somebody talks about it, so here it is. It's not relevant for this discussion but it's relevant nonetheless.
-
Kev
And I also believe that storing attachments as attachments is probably easier than storing them as messages.
-
ralphm
Kev: yeah, we talked about dimensions before, and I'm not sure yet what the MAM protocol should look like.
-
larma
Kev, but often the message containing the attachment has relevant information, like the person that attached the message
-
pep.
Also re reactions being "compressed", "I have a use-case" for wanting individual payloads that have been sent (that is, even for just one user, have all the intermediate payloads they've sent)
-
ralphm
But semantically, calling a retraction an attachment is a bit odd.
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
larma
Matrix does the same IIRC 😀
-
Kev
ralphm: Yes, I would be happiest with just <message><retract...></>
-
Kev
pep.: I don't think we're suggesting not storing them, just that it's most useful to present to a client as a summary usually.
-
ralphm
pep.: didn't I say we would have the ability to retrieve all the things?
-
Kev
larma: Yes, there's some metadata involved.
-
Kev
We did talk about all this at the summit, I wonder if any of it was captured in the minutes.
-
ralphm
http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2019-08-29#2019-08-29-24812f82e1f8a8be
-
ralphm
Kev: if you'd be happier with my example, what is the problem with it then?
-
ralphm
Kev: the lookup?
-
Kev
Your example was to retract attach-to message wrappers in the same way as to retract messages, wasn't it?
-
Kev
I'm certainly not happier with that.
-
Kev
I'm happier when messages are retracted in one way, and attach-to retracted in another.
-
ralphm
So like we have retract item and delete node in pubsub?
- adiaholic has left
-
Kev
Somewhat, yes.
-
ralphm
I thought it might be easier to just say to undo a stanza being sent, but not a hill for me to die on
-
pep.
ralphm: OK i right have misread
-
ralphm
No worries. Things were going FAST
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- sonny has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
Ge0rG
Sorry, I had to vanish into a call. Now that I'm back, the last hour of log doesn't make much sense to me.
-
MattJ
You had to be there
-
Ge0rG
You want message retraction to explicitly use a different mechanism than Attach-To? What about Message Edits, should that stay Attach-To?
-
Zash
Which direction does the relation go?
-
Ge0rG
Zash: the new message references the old message
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
pep.
That doesn't specify the relation between the two though. Is there a case of a new message becoming the parent of an older one
-
Zash
But does the new message belong to the old message or the reverse?
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Ge0rG
can we leave the philosophical questions for later, please, and focus on the protocol?
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- nyco has joined
-
nyco
test
- waqas has joined
-
Guus
a+
-
ralphm
.
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Seve
Test passed
-
Guus
we meet?
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
nyco
ouch
-
MattJ
Oh wow, it's Thursday again :/
-
Guus
Welcome to my thoughts, 10 minutes ago.
-
Guus
(only because I got a calendar reminder 😉 )
-
ralphm
0. Welcome
-
ralphm
Hope everybody is reconnected, there was a strange disconnect with xmpp.org from here.
-
Guus
I've seen everyone say something.
-
Seve
Hi
-
MattJ
wfm
-
ralphm
yay
-
ralphm
1. Minute taker
-
Guus
assuming we can't find someone from the floor, I'll do 'm this time
-
ralphm
Thanks!
-
ralphm
2. Badges
-
nyco
thx
-
ralphm
I have reached out to mray. He responded and asked the following:
-
ralphm
“I'd be interested in the kind of combinations that the system needs to cover. Maybe you can break it down for me without the entire context of XMPP compliance. Eventually even a complete set of possible combinations?”
-
ralphm
Who can create such a list?
-
nyco
other submissions did that, no?
-
Guus
combinations of what, exactly?
-
nyco
each requirements
-
Seve
Levels of compliance I guess
-
ralphm
All combinations of thingies to appear in the badges
-
ralphm
So basically, he did 3 examples, and we now come up with all the combinations we'd like him to construct as actual badges
-
Guus
from the XEP: > This document defines Categories based on typical use cases (Core, Web, IM, Mobile) and Levels (Core, Advanced) based on functionality in the respective category.
-
Guus
so, we need each combination of Category with Level, and add a year / edition to it?
-
Guus
Although Core/Core 2019 seems weird.
-
nyco
2019 would be cool
-
ralphm
He doesn't want to read the document, he just wants: (XMPP LOGO) | CLIENT | Advanced ) IM | 2019 (XMPP LOGO) | SERVER | Advanced ) IM | 2019 etc.
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
ralphm
or somesuch
-
Guus
I'll wrap up a list
-
ralphm
Thanks!
-
ralphm
Also thanks nyco fo sending the results out to the list.
-
Seve
Thank you guys
-
nyco
in a spreadsheet?
-
ralphm
maybe
-
ralphm
3. Roadmap
-
ralphm
Apart from this huge discussion this morning, afternoon, I haven't gotten to this.
-
ralphm
Good progress on the former, though.
-
ralphm
4. AOB
-
ralphm
?
-
MattJ
None here
-
Guus
I've got two
-
Seve
None here
-
ralphm
Guus: shoot
-
Guus
isn't it about time we organize new elections?
-
nyco
you mean Boris Jonhson?
-
ralphm
Usually Alex picks this up in September.
-
Guus
ack.
-
nyco
missing id
- nyco_ has joined
-
ralphm
Next Guus?
-
Guus
2) I've been approached by https://openvoipalliance.org/ - they're interested in involving XMPP in this.
- nyco has left
- nyco has joined
-
Alex
yes, elections are on my radar, have a reminder in my cal for Sept. 1st. Will open the application process after our current voting period
-
Guus
I'd like to see if there's benefit for us in actively becoming a partner in that effort.
-
Guus
(Thanks Alex)
-
ralphm
Guus: interesting. I see they already use XMPP and converse.js
-
Seve
I didn't know about it
-
ralphm
But yes, I'd be interested to know how they would like us to get involved.
-
ralphm
Guus: can you send me the e-mail? I'd be happy to follow-up.
-
Guus
what email? we're talking over XMPP. 🙂
- nyco has left
-
ralphm
oh hehe
-
Seve
Niiice :)
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Guus
I'll see if we can arrange for a groupchat of sorts
-
ralphm
Thanks
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
ralphm
Anything else?
-
Guus
FIN
-
ralphm
5. Date of Next
-
ralphm
+1W
-
ralphm
6. Close
-
MattJ
wfm
-
ralphm
Thanks all!
- ralphm bangs gavel, and retroactively at the start of the meeting
-
Seve
I really like this " You can chat with us through our XMPP server to see if your project fits." but would need to check exactly what it is and what can we do
-
Seve
Thank you for the meeting, glad to see all of you today
- nyco has joined
-
nyco
thx all
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- lumi has joined
-
nyco
more glitches from the xmpp.org server?
-
Zash
Glitches?
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- matkor has left
- matkor has joined
-
Guus
ralphm I've updated https://trello.com/c/J97CukTU/358-contact-mray-to-confirm-chosen-badge-design with the requested list of badge element combinations.
-
pep.
Zash: ip6 issues apparently? Says Ge0rG
- nyco has joined
-
Ge0rG
The connection hung. Looks like a kick against the tires helped.
- matkor has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- matkor has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Ge0rG
But then it dropped out again.
- nyco has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- waqas has left
-
Guus
https://igniterealtime.org:443/httpfileupload/41c708d3-4197-408d-98a6-3e2d2b5fbfea/image.png
-
Guus
harhg
-
Guus
that was _not_ the copy/paste that I intended - sorry
-
pep.
Features
-
Guus
PEP mandates filtered-notification support
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Guus
are all PEP services therefor always filtered, or can the feature go unused?
-
Ge0rG
Instant dick-pic upload!
- patrick has joined
- UsL has joined
- Chobbes has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- andy has left
- andy has joined
- matkor has left
- matkor has joined
- Chobbes has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- jubalh has left
- zach has left
- madhur.garg has left
- zach has joined
- sonny has left
-
ralphm
Guus: if you don't have the filtered notification, isn't it just regular pubsub on an account?
- patrick has left
-
Guus
ralphm: pep adds other restrictions
-
ralphm
My point is that if you don't do one one these, it is no longer PEP but some other subset of PubSub on an account.
-
Guus
Right
-
ralphm
Curious about the use case, though
-
Guus
Filtering is mandatory then, for pep
- jabberjocke has joined
-
Guus
No use case. Bug hunting / code reviewing
-
Zash
Is it PEP if there's no filtered notifications, but instead dynamic presence based subscriptions?
- jabberjocke has left
- jabberjocke has joined
-
Guus
Can clients even apply such configuration?
-
ralphm
Well the whole raison-d'être of PEP is not having to explicitly subscribe, so you have auto-subscription + filtering instructions via CAPS.
-
ralphm
Zash: there's a difference?
-
Zash
Not in practice
-
ralphm
Also not in theory?
-
Zash
Implementation detail I suppose
-
ralphm
Although I suppose you can think up another magic to get the notifications you want.
- eevvoor has left
-
Zash
I'd like to have negotiation for the thing ejabberd did, where it'd just ignore your caps and send all notifications
-
Zash
expecting the receiving end to filter
-
ralphm
Really? That seems terrible.
-
ralphm
One of the use cases when PEP was created was User Tunes.
-
Guus
Not in an environment where you want everyone to get all notifications
-
ralphm
Initially people would just include that in presence directly.
- zach has left
- UsL has left
- zach has joined
-
ralphm
So you got presence updates, once per 3 min. for each user.
-
Zash
If you filter and fork notifications on the receiving server it works, and has some benefits like MAM potential
-
Guus
Which presumably is less IM, more IOTish
-
Zash
But this isn't what the PEP XEP says, so it leads to madness.
-
Zash
Hence why I'd like some opt-in between servers for that
-
Guus
Note that I was not looking for a XEP change, I was just trying to get clarification.
-
ralphm
Zash: if you are taking about subscriptions on account level instead of resource level, along with s2s dedupe, that seems like a worthy cause.
-
ralphm
Especially also for MIX.
-
Zash
ralphm, yeah
- sezuan has left
- matkor has left
-
Zash
Not having to keep (a subset of) disco#info for remote entities seems like a nice thing to me as a server dev.
-
ralphm
As long as information is public that works. And identical between subscribers.
- lovetox has joined
- j.r has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- goffi has left
- Steve Kille has left
- Wojtek has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Steve Kille has joined
- sezuan has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- Wojtek has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- matkor has joined
- waqas has joined
- waqas has left
- aj has left
- goffi has joined
- Nekit has left
- sezuan has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has left
- jabberjocke has left
- lovetox has left
- lovetox has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- linkmauve has left
- linkmauve has joined
- linkmauve has left
- linkmauve has joined
- sonny has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- madhur.garg has joined
- karoshi has left
- adiaholic has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- xnamed has joined
- Yagiza has left
- adiaholic has joined
- debacle has joined
- debacle has left
- karoshi has joined
- xalek has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
-
Alex
let's start our member meeting in 3 minutes
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- Alex bangs the gavel
-
Alex
here is our Agenda for today: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-08-29
-
Alex
1) Call for Quorum
-
Alex
as you can see 36 members voted via memberbot. So we have a quorum
-
Alex
2) Items Subject to a Vote
-
Alex
new and returning members, you can see the application pages here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2019
-
Alex
3) Opportunity for XSF Members to Vote in the Meeting
-
Alex
anyone here who has not voted yet?
-
MattJ
Erm, did I?
-
Alex
Memberbot is still online and will accept votes
-
Zash
Do it! Do it now!
-
Alex
MattJ: don't think so
-
MattJ
Ok, I'm on it
-
Alex
go for it
-
jonas’
oh!
-
jonas’
I did vote, didn’t I?
-
MattJ
I'm done, probably made a massive difference to the outcome :)
-
Guus
I wonder if Santa is making notes for his naughty list.
-
Alex
MattJ: have your vote
-
ralphm
Yay
-
Alex
anyone else?
-
Alex
looks like we have all votes
-
Alex
Will start counting the votes then
-
Alex
4) Announcement_of_Voting_Results
- zach has left
- zach has joined
-
Zash
*drumroll*
-
Alex
if you reload the page at: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-08-29#Announcement_of_Voting_Results you can see the voting results
-
Alex
all new and returning members are accepted
-
Alex
congrats to everyone
-
Alex
very high yes votes,, stands for high quality members
-
Alex
5) Any Other Business?
-
jonas’
or `yes | send_xmpp.py memberbot@xmpp.org` ;)
-
jonas’
congrats to the newly accepted members, Natalie Wirth and Marvin Wissfeld! :)
-
jonas’
larma,✎ -
jonas’
. ✏
-
Zash
Congrats to everyone
-
jonas’
No AOB from me
-
larma
\o/
-
Alex
just wanna mention that annual elections are coming up
-
Ge0rG
Alex: what's the timeline?
-
Alex
will work on the application page soon
-
Guus
Please consider running!
-
Guus
and/or motivate others to run.
- eevvoor has left
-
Ge0rG
I need to ensure my campaign funding
-
Alex
last year the meeting was November 22nd
-
Alex
trying to stick close to that, so that board and council has same term length (12 month)
-
Guus
Sounds reasonable
-
Alex
see: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2018-11-22
-
Ge0rG
Natalie and Marvin can take over the Council now
-
Alex
6) Formal Adjournment
-
Alex
I motion that we adjourn
-
Zash
👍
- Alex bangs the gavel
-
jonas’
wfm
-
jonas’
thanks, Alex
-
Alex
thanks everyone
-
jonas’
thanks everyone
-
Guus
Thanks again, Alex.
-
Alex
will send out mails tomorrow morning to members and update website and lists
- waqas has joined
-
pep.
Thanks Alex
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- xalek has joined
-
mathieui
Thanks Alex
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- matkor has left
- xnamed has left
- waqas has left
- waqas has joined
- xalek has left
- xalek has joined
- APach has left
- APach has joined
- sezuan has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- wurstsalat has left
- LNJ has left
- wurstsalat has joined
- lorddavidiii has joined
- lorddavidiii has left
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- UsL has joined
- xnamed has joined
- jubalh has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has left
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- sonny has left
- jubalh has left
- linkmauve has left
- jcbrand has left
- Nekit has joined
- sonny has joined
- sonny has left
- sonny has joined
- karoshi has left
- sezuan has left
- jubalh has joined
- lovetox has left
- Nekit has left
- xnamed has left
- xnamed has joined
- jubalh has left
- Tobias has left
- sonny has left
- andy has left
- pdurbin has joined
- jabberjocke has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- pdurbin has left
- sonny has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- goffi has left
- UsL has left
- UsL has joined
- rion has left
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- aj has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- UsL has left
- UsL has joined
- lskdjf has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- adityaborikar has left
- adityaborikar has joined
- david has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- Yagiza has joined
- afrogeek has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- david has joined
- Maranda has left
- Maranda has joined
- andy has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- rion has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- Nekit has joined
- APach has joined
- LNJ has joined
- pdurbin has left
- j.r has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- LNJ has left
- sezuan has joined
- UsL has left
- adityaborikar has left
- karoshi has joined
- Alex has left
- Alex has joined
- jonas’ has joined
- sezuan has left
- UsL has joined
- sezuan has joined
- Steve Kille has left
- jabberjocke has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- sezuan has left
- Steve Kille has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- wurstsalat has joined
- adiaholic has left
- APach has left
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- jabberjocke has left
- pdurbin has left
- APach has joined
- murabito has left
- murabito has joined
- murabito has left
- murabito has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- jubalh has joined
- sezuan has joined
- eevvoor has left
- Mikaela has joined
- Douglas Terabyte has left
- Douglas Terabyte has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
- edhelas has left
- edhelas has joined
- larma has left
- Mikaela has left
- Mikaela has joined
- larma has joined
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- debacle has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- lskdjf has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- debacle has left
- pdurbin has left
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- eevvoor has left
- eevvoor has joined
- adiaholic has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- eevvoor has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- aj has left
- Daniel has left
- Daniel has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- matkor has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- wurstsalat has left
- wurstsalat has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- pdurbin has left
- Nekit has left
- andrey.g has left
- Nekit has joined
- LNJ has joined
- andrey.g has joined
- linkmauve has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- balu_der_baer has joined
- balu_der_baer has left
- UsL has left
- Syndace has left
- Syndace has joined
- Nekit has left
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- Dele (Mobile) has joined
- Nekit has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- wurstsalat has left
- wurstsalat has joined
- rion has left
- rion has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- aj has joined
- matkor has left
- matkor has joined
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- Nekit has left
- Nekit has joined
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- sonny has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- nyco has joined
- waqas has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- nyco_ has joined
- nyco has left
- nyco has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- nyco has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- lumi has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- matkor has left
- matkor has joined
- nyco has joined
- matkor has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- matkor has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- nyco has joined
- nyco has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- waqas has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- patrick has joined
- UsL has joined
- Chobbes has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- andy has left
- andy has joined
- matkor has left
- matkor has joined
- Chobbes has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- jubalh has left
- zach has left
- madhur.garg has left
- zach has joined
- sonny has left
- patrick has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- jabberjocke has left
- jabberjocke has joined
- eevvoor has left
- zach has left
- UsL has left
- zach has joined
- sezuan has left
- matkor has left
- lovetox has joined
- j.r has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- goffi has left
- Steve Kille has left
- Wojtek has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Steve Kille has joined
- sezuan has joined
- pdurbin has joined
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- pdurbin has left
- Wojtek has left
- arc has left
- arc has joined
- matkor has joined
- waqas has joined
- waqas has left
- aj has left
- goffi has joined
- Nekit has left
- sezuan has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has left
- jabberjocke has left
- lovetox has left
- lovetox has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- linkmauve has left
- linkmauve has joined
- linkmauve has left
- linkmauve has joined
- sonny has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- madhur.garg has joined
- karoshi has left
- adiaholic has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- xnamed has joined
- Yagiza has left
- adiaholic has joined
- debacle has joined
- debacle has left
- karoshi has joined
- xalek has left
- adiaholic has left
- adiaholic has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has left
- waqas has joined
- Dele (Mobile) has left
- xalek has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- matkor has left
- xnamed has left
- waqas has left
- waqas has joined
- xalek has left
- xalek has joined
- APach has left
- APach has joined
- sezuan has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- eevvoor has joined
- wurstsalat has left
- LNJ has left
- wurstsalat has joined
- lorddavidiii has joined
- lorddavidiii has left
- pdurbin has joined
- pdurbin has left
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- UsL has joined
- xnamed has joined
- jubalh has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- eevvoor has left
- sezuan has left
- sezuan has joined
- sonny has left
- jubalh has left
- linkmauve has left
- jcbrand has left
- Nekit has joined
- sonny has joined
- sonny has left
- sonny has joined
- karoshi has left
- sezuan has left
- jubalh has joined
- lovetox has left
- Nekit has left
- xnamed has left
- xnamed has joined
- jubalh has left
- Tobias has left
- sonny has left
- andy has left
- pdurbin has joined
- jabberjocke has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- pdurbin has left
- sonny has joined
- zach has left
- zach has joined
- goffi has left
- UsL has left
- UsL has joined