“00:23:33 Zash> Wanna help with my WIP mod_nodeinfo2.lua?”, sure.
pep.
I also do fwiw
zachhas left
zachhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
debaclehas joined
j.rhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
mukt2has left
j.rhas left
mukt2has joined
j.rhas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
mukt2has left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
chronosx88has joined
mukt2has left
UsLhas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
Link Mauve
Damn, XEP-0076 violates the RFC by adding a second payload to an iq, and not having any @type on it.
Link Mauve
This definitely needs fixing.
flow
Link Mauve, are you going to fix it?
mukt2has joined
UsLhas left
Link Mauve
It would require a very different approach, which I’m not sure would fly.
Link Mauve
Such as using a namespaced attribute!!!
flow
Link Mauve, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/842
Link Mauve
Thanks.
Link Mauve
But it means you have to add support for it in every single parser, rather than just once at the iq level.
eevvoorhas left
Link Mauve
Imagine I forgot to implement it in the disco#info parser, I would fail to notice that your disco#info reply was evil.
Link Mauve
That in itself is a security issue.
goffihas left
flow
Would that be true for a namespaced attribute also?
flow
*Wouldn't that be
eevvoorhas joined
j.rhas left
emushas left
emushas joined
eevvoorhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
j.rhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
jubalhhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
jubalhhas joined
eevvoorhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
goffihas joined
emushas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
jubalhhas left
emushas joined
kokonoehas joined
pdurbinhas joined
jubalhhas joined
kokonoehas left
emushas left
emushas joined
pdurbinhas left
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Mikaelahas left
Mikaelahas joined
adiaholichas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has left
andyhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has joined
j.rhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Chobbeshas left
adiaholichas left
j.rhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
APachhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
eevvoorhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Chobbeshas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has left
j.rhas left
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas joined
goffihas left
jubalhhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
pdurbinhas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
adiaholichas left
mukt2has joined
j.rhas joined
UsLhas joined
pdurbinhas left
adiaholichas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
kokonoehas joined
Syndacehas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
waqashas joined
adiaholichas left
ajhas joined
Mikaelahas left
Mikaelahas joined
Wojtekhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
kokonoehas left
adiaholichas joined
Syndacehas joined
kokonoehas joined
waqashas left
jonas’
Kev, while I have you on the hook, can you look at the docker hub thing? I didn’t have permissions to set up the builds myself.✎
jonas’
Kev, while I have you on the hook, did you have a chance to look at the docker hub thing? I didn’t have permissions to set up the builds myself. ✏
Kev
Oh, no, I didn't. I think that's you not having rights on github, as I've given you maximal rights on docker hub.
jonas’
Kev, I’m not sure about that
jonas’
also that web interface is extremely confusing
Kev
It is (confusing).
jonas’
Kev, I think I’d need permissions on the org, not on the docker repo on docker hub to do this
mukt2has left
Kev
I think you need permission on the org, not the repo, on github to do this. I could be wrong.
Kev
Included in the right you've been granted on dockerhub is linking to github, unless I forget what I read.
jonas’
I’m pretty sure it’s on the docker hub side of things
jonas’
because it briefly shows me the org settings before deciding that I shouldn’t be able to use those
jonas’
this here is a 404 for me: https://cloud.docker.com/u/xmppxsf/settings/xmppxsf/dashboard
jonas’
and it wants me to go there to connect to github
Kev
It's a 404 for me too.
jonas’
m(
jonas’
maybe this is a glitch in the software then
jonas’
can *you* connect the repo to github?
jonas’
https://cloud.docker.com/u/xmppxsf/repository/docker/xmppxsf/registry/builds via this
Kev
Yes, but it requires me to grant access to assorted organisations that I don't want to, it seems, which is why I left it for someone else to do.
Kev
But it does indeed seem to be doing it through the org settings, you're right.
jonas’
so it’s GitHubs weird authz model again
Kev
Or what docker hub is asking for, possibly.
Kev
But it wants read/write access to the whole world.
jonas’
yeah, which it gets unless the GitHub org has prevented that by default >.>
jonas’
that’s GitHubs stupid model
mukt2has joined
Kev
https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/builds/#service-users-for-team-autobuilds says something about this, haven't read it yet.
eevvoorhas left
zachhas left
Nekithas left
zachhas joined
Nekithas joined
Kev
jonas’: So I think what needs to happen is the XSF to have an appropriately-limited service account created on github, and then an org owner on dockerhub to link them.
Kev
I'd suggest Matt getting himself owner access to Docker Hub would be a better start to this than continuing with me having access and other iteam not.
jonas’
that sounds like a PITA
jonas’
why does it work for xeps etc.?
Kev
I assume it was configured at some previous time when different access was needed.
debaclehas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Chobbeshas left
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
Chobbeshas joined
davidhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
davidhas joined
adiaholichas left
Ge0rG
Daniel, jonas’: I want to add JFT to CS-2020. Should I also mandate SOCKS5, IBB, or both? I tend to have IBB only as a minimum consensus.
Daniel
ibb is a MUST in jingle ft iirc
jonas’
Ge0rG, yes, IBB
Zash
The last fallback.
jonas’
as minimum consensus
jonas’
advanced should probably support SOCKS5
Ge0rG
Daniel: ah, ok. Then it doesn't hurt to have it in CS2020.
jonas’
Ge0rG, I’d like to nominate Jingle Encryption for Future things✎
jonas’
Ge0rG, I’d like to nominate Jingle Encryption for Future Things✎✏
jonas’
Ge0rG, I’d like to nominate Jingle Encrypted Transport for Future Things ✏
Ge0rG
jonas’: if JFT is an advanced feature, is S5B advanced-advanced?
Daniel
i'd prefer to have http upload instead of jft
Ge0rG
Daniel: that'll be in Core IM
Zash
vcard4, deprecate vcard-temp?
jonas’
Ge0rG, good point, S5B should be honoruable mention, but don’t require it for advanced
Ge0rG
jonas’: there is no column for honorable mentions
Daniel
i hear cool use webrtc these days as transport
jonas’
Ge0rG, "Future Things"? ;)
Daniel
but i'm not cool
Ge0rG
I'm pondering whether to add 0066 in "File Upload"
jonas’
Ge0rG, I was thinking about that, too
Ge0rG
it's tribal knowledge, so better have it in there
jonas’
true
jubalhhas joined
andyhas joined
Ge0rG
jonas’: added all your feedback to #841
Daniel
Ge0rG: I'm sort of against bookmark conversion
Ge0rG
Daniel: mind discussing that on-list?
jonas’
yes please, I’m on my way out
Daniel
If our changes to bookmarks 2 are accepted by the authors I hope to be able to deprecate conversion soon
Ge0rG
I don't have a strong opinion on that, but it seemed useful to me.
Ge0rG
Daniel: what's the migration path from private XML and PEP to Bookmarks2?
Daniel
Ge0rG: bookmark 2 doing the conversion
Daniel
The xep already hints at that. Our changes add features for that
Ge0rG
> A server MAY choose to unify the bookmarks from both Private XML Storage (XEP-0049) [2] based and the current Bookmark Storage (XEP-0048) [1].
Ge0rG
it's a hint only.
Daniel
Ge0rG: yes
Daniel
For now
Ge0rG
Daniel: I will ask for an LC of CS2020 next week. Is the situation going to change until then?
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Daniel
Probably not
Ge0rG
I need to redo 0411 anyway, because it is a server-thing.✎
Ge0rG
I need to move 0411 anyway, because it is a server-thing. ✏
Ge0rG
no wait. Everything is good.
pdurbinhas joined
lovetox_has joined
adiaholichas joined
pdurbinhas left
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
adiaholichas left
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
emushas left
kokonoehas left
adiaholichas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
stpeterhas joined
peterhas joined
pep.
jonas’, it might actually be interesting to split CCG and the use-cases? I mean CCG is currently defined on "a string", but 3.2 and 3.3 could be different XEPs? and more could be added this way
pep.
That's in reaction to Ge0rG's PR on 423, I find it pretty restrictive (not the right word) to name it the dep on 392 "User Name Coloring"✎
Shellhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
Chobbeshas left
pep.
That's in reaction to Ge0rG's PR on 423, I find it pretty restrictive (not the right word) to name the dep on 392 "User Name Coloring" ✏
ajhas left
mukt2has left
Chobbeshas joined
mukt2has joined
Wojtekhas left
zachhas left
Ge0rG
pep.: do you have a better name suggestion?
zachhas joined
rionhas left
pep.
I'd be happy to keep that name if we had a xep that requires CCG and is specifically for user name coloring :p
pep.
For CCG itself I'm not sure yeah
emushas joined
Nekithas left
pep.
(And if it were split, it wouldn't make sense to include CCG itself anyway)
Zashread "GCC"
rionhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
adiaholichas left
waqashas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
jonas’
Zash, it’s even more confusing if you also are familiar with GGC, which is the Garbage Collector implementation GCC uses internally (while compiling)
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Seve
@_@
Zash
The number of [GC]{3} is too damn high!
lorddavidiiihas left
jonas’
I think there’s also a dithering algorithm or something like that which is in that space of names
andyhas left
andyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
waqashas left
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
pdurbinhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
j.rhas left
eevvoorhas joined
pdurbinhas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Ge0rG
And, probably too obvious, the CCC.
xalekhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
j.rhas joined
Nekithas joined
Chobbeshas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Wojtekhas joined
Chobbeshas joined
goffihas joined
Yagizahas left
stpeterhas left
peterhas left
j.rhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
stpeterhas joined
peterhas joined
kokonoehas joined
adiaholichas joined
jonas’
mildly amusing: I just found this (<https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/51948/is-it-okay-to-normalize-unicode-passwords-with-nfc-nfd>) stackexchange question I wrote five years ago. I love the sentence:
> I found that there is a stringprep (RFC 3454) profile called SASLprep (RFC 4013) which is appearantly used for passwords and usernames in some protocols.