XSF Discussion - 2019-12-13

  1. Shell has left
  2. Shell has joined
  3. kokonoe has joined
  4. !XSF_Martin has left
  5. stpeter has joined
  6. sjaak has left
  7. sjaak has joined
  8. sjaak has left
  9. sjaak has joined
  10. !XSF_Martin has joined
  11. larma has left
  12. larma has joined
  13. debacle has left
  14. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined
  15. mukt2 has joined
  16. sjaak has left
  17. sjaak has joined
  18. sjaak has left
  19. sjaak has joined
  20. sjaak has left
  21. sjaak has joined
  22. sjaak has left
  23. sjaak has joined
  24. mukt2 has left
  25. SpaceFreak aka Tracer 👍
  26. SpaceFreak aka Tracer thats zero o'clock content
  27. sjaak has left
  28. sjaak has joined
  29. SpaceFreak aka Tracer :64 participants at this time is actually sick~
  30. eevvoor has left
  31. sjaak has left
  32. sjaak has joined
  33. sjaak has left
  34. sjaak has joined
  35. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left
  36. calvin has joined
  37. mukt2 has joined
  38. stpeter has left
  39. andy has left
  40. stpeter has joined
  41. !XSF_Martin has left
  42. !XSF_Martin has joined
  43. moparisthebest Wonder how that works copyright-wise with nginx
  44. moparisthebest I'd hope if you don't enforce your copyright for 20 years while the product gains widespread adoption you don't get to swoop in and take it, but who knows
  45. mukt2 has left
  46. mukt2 has joined
  47. krauq has left
  48. kokonoe has left
  49. krauq has joined
  50. sjaak has left
  51. sjaak has joined
  52. sjaak has left
  53. sjaak has joined
  54. adiaholic has joined
  55. pdurbin has joined
  56. Arc well that didnt stop them from arresting the lead two developers
  57. Arc I assume their equivalent of a DA approved the arrest, usually required to get a justice to sign of
  58. mr.fister moparisthebest: that's the copyright law, destructive by design
  59. Arc but for a company that considers working on other FOSS projects to be a conflict of interest, I don't feel bad for them.
  60. Arc if they were good actors in the community I'd be happy to come to their defense
  61. !XSF_Martin has left
  62. !XSF_Martin has joined
  63. pdurbin has left
  64. Arc they were literally the last company I interviewed for in SF.
  65. Zash has left
  66. Arc the first interview was great. sure there were accent barriers but it seemed like a great fit. and then being introduced to their CEO who turned out to be a former rugby teammate from washington DC
  67. Zash has joined
  68. mukt2 has left
  69. Arc and that amazing high turned 180 when the CEO told me, point blank, that I'd have to resign from working on other FOSS projects while working for them because it'd be considered a conflict of interest ---
  70. kokonoe has joined
  71. arc has left
  72. arc has joined
  73. !XSF_Martin has left
  74. mimi89999 has left
  75. mimi89999 has joined
  76. moparisthebest Actually I'd heard you tell that story before so I didn't feel sorry for them either
  77. moparisthebest I was asking for more selfish reasons, like, can I keep using nginx :)
  78. sjaak has left
  79. sjaak has joined
  80. sjaak has left
  81. sjaak has joined
  82. mukt2 has joined
  83. Daniel has left
  84. Daniel has joined
  85. !XSF_Martin has joined
  86. mr.fister moparisthebest: you'll know it only after a while, the rambler group states that "any usage of nginx without their personal permission is violation of copyright law" or something like that
  87. waqas has left
  88. mukt2 has left
  89. !XSF_Martin has left
  90. UṣL has left
  91. Shell has left
  92. mukt2 has joined
  93. !XSF_Martin has joined
  94. calvin has left
  95. calvin has joined
  96. mukt2 has left
  97. adiaholic has left
  98. adiaholic has joined
  99. andrey.g has joined
  100. karoshi has joined
  101. mukt2 has joined
  102. krauq has left
  103. Zash has left
  104. krauq has joined
  105. calvin has left
  106. !XSF_Martin has left
  107. !XSF_Martin has joined
  108. matkor has left
  109. matkor has joined
  110. pdurbin has joined
  111. kokonoe has left
  112. kokonoe has joined
  113. pdurbin has left
  114. !XSF_Martin has left
  115. !XSF_Martin has joined
  116. mukt2 has left
  117. !XSF_Martin has left
  118. !XSF_Martin has joined
  119. Daniel has left
  120. Daniel has joined
  121. ralphm has left
  122. ralphm has joined
  123. Nekit has joined
  124. Yagiza has joined
  125. mukt2 has joined
  126. !XSF_Martin has left
  127. !XSF_Martin has joined
  128. ralphm has left
  129. ralphm has joined
  130. !XSF_Martin has left
  131. !XSF_Martin has joined
  132. stpeter has left
  133. andy has joined
  134. karoshi has left
  135. andy has left
  136. andy has joined
  137. neshtaxmpp has joined
  138. lorddavidiii has joined
  139. mukt2 has left
  140. stpeter has joined
  141. pdurbin has joined
  142. stpeter has left
  143. kokonoe has left
  144. adiaholic has left
  145. adiaholic has joined
  146. pdurbin has left
  147. mr.fister has left
  148. wurstsalat has joined
  149. Douglas Terabyte has left
  150. paul has joined
  151. DebXWoody has left
  152. stpeter has joined
  153. kokonoe has joined
  154. DebXWoody has joined
  155. pdurbin has joined
  156. stpeter has left
  157. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  158. pdurbin has left
  159. LNJ has joined
  160. !XSF_Martin has left
  161. Daniel > I assume their equivalent of a DA approved the arrest, usually required to get a justice to sign of Arc: it's Russia
  162. stpeter has joined
  163. neshtaxmpp has left
  164. stpeter has left
  165. !XSF_Martin has joined
  166. mukt2 has joined
  167. LNJ has left
  168. mukt2 has left
  169. sonny has joined
  170. kokonoe has left
  171. kokonoe has joined
  172. arc has left
  173. arc has joined
  174. Arc certainly its Russia. :-)
  175. moparisthebest has left
  176. rion has joined
  177. Tobias has joined
  178. karoshi has joined
  179. Arc I don't expect their former employer will win. But the drama will likely drag out for some time, especially influence their current round of VC funding, and will hurt their user base
  180. !XSF_Martin has left
  181. !XSF_Martin has joined
  182. matkor has left
  183. matkor has joined
  184. UṣL has joined
  185. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined
  186. sonny has left
  187. adiaholic has left
  188. Arc its like Michael Holdmann trying to patent parts of XMPP and then use those patents as collateral for VC loans. Its nasty behavior that can only hurt the community when his business fails and those patents get sold to a patent troll
  189. adiaholic has joined
  190. Arc if NGINX Inc never existed, if nginx remained a FOSS project, or tried to commercialize without VC funding or trying to turn themselves into a FOSS-toxic tech startup, we wouldn't be where we are now. but now that they have, the VC money they've pocketed makes them an easy target for copyright trolls.
  191. sjaak has left
  192. sjaak has joined
  193. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left
  194. !XSF_Martin has left
  195. !XSF_Martin has joined
  196. mathijs has left
  197. mathijs has joined
  198. sonny has joined
  199. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined
  200. krauq has left
  201. krauq has joined
  202. dwd I think I'm broadly in agreement with lovetox here. I think Kev's proposal on list goes some way to addressing these concerns, and we'll work on a concrete proposal in this space next week.
  203. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left
  204. nyco thread regarding IoT : https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103293746877193364
  205. adiaholic has left
  206. Arc nyco: XEP 0322 needs some serious work or should be killed. its in a non-starter state because it was written by someone with only the most cursory experience with EXI
  207. nyco yep, maybe we should reboot the IoT stuff
  208. Arc i dont expect to see any forward movement from that from the xmpp council because EXI is very much not simple
  209. Arc grammar distribution and negotiation needs to be solved.
  210. Arc and yes while grammar unaware mode is available, and could be used, it would dramatically increase the software size for embedded devices and thus make it not feasible for some iot cases
  211. Arc I think I might be the only current XSF member with any experience working with EXI and that would need to change to move forward with it
  212. nyco there is some more members with EXI experience, not judging on how much
  213. Arc who?
  214. nyco yeah, indeed, EXI may not be the way to go
  215. nyco Arc MongooseIM guys
  216. nyco at least
  217. adiaholic has joined
  218. Arc ive never gotten that impression
  219. Daniel On the topic of exi. I was in a meeting yesterday in which we essentially decided to reinvent exi because exi itself was deemed to complicated
  220. pdurbin has joined
  221. Daniel But we do a strong need for 'something like exi'
  222. Arc its not too complicated, its poorly documented.
  223. Arc EXI itself is incredibly simple
  224. Daniel Meaning compression with predefined dictionary
  225. Arc the string dictionary?
  226. Daniel A xml tag name namespace tuples dictionary
  227. Daniel So yes, I guess
  228. Arc yea so that's really simple. too simple.
  229. Arc the only place so far I've had EXI completely fail is SVG
  230. Arc but the problem with the way its documented is it feels ass backwards. we tend to view XML from a data -> in perspective, because that's the way virtually every piece of software is written
  231. beta has left
  232. beta has joined
  233. Arc its best to view EXI from the viewpoint of the data consumer; typically from the viewpoint of that critical piece of code that does a string compare to match it with code to be executed when a certain element is found
  234. Arc in XMPP code, that means the stanza router
  235. mathijs has left
  236. mathijs has joined
  237. Arc somewhere in virtually every piece of XMPP software I've ever seen is a string compare routing an incoming stanza for message, iq, presence, or various stream errors/etc.
  238. Zash has joined
  239. Arc in EXI you always have the grammar - whether its schema informed strict (whereas grammar is fixed), schema informed non-strict (whereas grammar can be extended), or schema uninformed (whereas the grammar is constructed as needed).
  240. dwd Arc, But string compares only after parsing, right?
  241. neshtaxmpp has joined
  242. Daniel I guess what I'm saying is that we have a need for some form of binary xml. But exi feels too much for us to tackle alone. (as opposed to just coming up with something new). But if someone else wants to colab on an exi 2.0 xep or something I might be able to convince my people to do that instead
  243. Arc dwd in traditional XML sure, string compares after layer 2 parsing.
  244. dwd Arc, But EXI prevents this?
  245. Arc in EXI you should only do string compare when parsing the grammar.
  246. dwd Arc, I think I need an example, I'm being stupid.
  247. Arc your parser isnt receiving the string "message" anymore. its receiving the integer 1 instead. the grammer determines how many integers there are at a given scope, and what those integers mean
  248. Arc ok. say we're in the scope of <stream:stream> and lets ignore stream management and stream:error etc; we have 4 possible options in xmpp; message, iq, presence, and </steam:stream>
  249. Arc EXI understands those as 0, 1, 2, and 3.
  250. Arc when in bit-packed mode EXI will represent those options with 2 bits. in other modes as one byte. but in parsing it doesn't matter
  251. pdurbin has left
  252. Arc on decompression you set a hook for message, iq, presence, and </stream:stream> like you always have. the difference is now you're not string comparing what the XML library is giving you. your code is being called on a switch block for 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. which is tremendously faster
  253. Arc for embedded IoT devices using strict schema-informed grammar you can hard code that so that 0 is always message, 1 is always iq, 2 is always presence, and 3 is always </stream:stream>
  254. Arc so you're decoding a <iq> element, in that scope there's be a fixed number of attributes and child elements that are understood by the grammar, and similarly each is represented by an integer. with strict schema-informed grammar those options will always be the same. so a byte 1 followed by a byte 2 may always be "<iq from="
  255. stpeter has joined
  256. Arc the only time a string compare should ever be needed is when transmitting grammar or grammar extensions for unexpected things that arrive, and then only once to see if your code has any clue what those things do.
  257. kokonoe has left
  258. LNJ has joined
  259. Arc after that you'll only use the integer for that thing, and you can record a pointer to what to execute what to do when that thing is read.
  260. !XSF_Martin has left
  261. !XSF_Martin has joined
  262. Arc the XMPP challenge for the XEP is for how the client informs the server what grammer to use. strictly "schema uninformed" would waste a lot of bandwidth and consequently battery power on the IoT device. ideally we would like the device to not have to transfer the grammer also to save power. eg it could come from the manufacturer
  263. LNJ has left
  264. Arc there's two major problems with XEP 0322; first its relying on "compiling" a schema from a given set of schema files (schema informs grammar, but lacks any definition for the precise way to do this reliably across different libraries), and second its using arbitrary URLs to load the schema files from which is a pretty major security issue
  265. Arc clients should not be able to cause a server to automatically download HTTP URLs; that could be used as part of a DDoS attack, to anonymously transmit data via some web APIs, or worse
  266. sjaak has left
  267. sjaak has joined
  268. marc_ has left
  269. Arc when I first started looking at EXI 5+ years ago I thought strict grammar mode would be unusable in any real world case. but the more you work with it, the more it changes your way of seeing XML, and you start to see strict grammar as the obvious default. there's certainly cases for extensible grammar but in all seriousness, software is written to process what the software is written to process.
  270. kokonoe has joined
  271. Arc that is to say: unless you're debugging or planning to save XML for other software to process, there's no reason to receive XML elements or attributes that the software is going to ignore anyway. its better for the server to silently drop that content instead of sending it to the client where it'll be ignored because there's the client doesn't know how to process it.
  272. marc_ has joined
  273. stpeter has left
  274. mukt2 has joined
  275. Daniel Fwiw I'd be fine with a potential exi 2.0 xep being only specified for strict
  276. intosi has joined
  277. Daniel That might limit exi use to closed deployments but that's where it is needed the most
  278. Arc well one thing the XEP does right IMHO is the client dictates the grammar. so the client decides.
  279. Arc Ive been able to compile libexi for one specific small grammar in under 1k of rom. and that's the point of it for IoT.
  280. Arc but there's really little need to restrict what the server can support. any xmpp server should be able to support all the various modes. plus - even with strict grammar, the client still needs a way to inform the server what the grammar is.
  281. Arc when your IoT device is monitoring air pollution while attached to the top of a city bus with rare earth magnet and powered by a solar cell, or monitoring soil moisture in your garden with a single AA battery, the transmit power (plus amount of time the CPU is out of sleep mode) to send the grammar is simple too much.
  282. Arc to convince a lot of IoT companies to change to XMPP we need to meet or beat the power use of their current protocol. which in most cases will look pretty similar
  283. dwd So my use for EXI would be handling the crappy bandwidth one gets in hospitals. I don't think I'm anywhere close to XMPP being the bandwidth hog here, mind, but still. I don't understand how a schema-strict mode would work (or, at least, how it wouldn't violate the end-to-end principle and all that implies).
  284. Arc schema-strict mode would do the exact same thing that current text XML does, just in a different place. if your current client ignores data it doesn't want or need, the server would drop that data instead.
  285. Arc and really, for most extensions, its a best practice not to send data that the receiver hasn't asked for or specified support for
  286. Guus Hey, Arc!
  287. Arc hey Guus!
  288. Guus Longtime no see. How are you? (maaaybe I should've waited for whatever conversation was going on to finish, sorry 😉 )
  289. dwd Also, yes, it's great to see Arc back.
  290. Arc dwd but also for hospital IoT stuff, they likely have the memory and CPU for handling non-strict schema. for the strict schema, its mostly for tiniest of IoT devices.
  291. Arc thanks! :-)
  292. dwd Arc, We're not IoT, but yes.
  293. Arc yea so informed non-strict should be fine.
  294. mimi89999 has left
  295. mukt2 has left
  296. Arc there's absolutely an overhead for building grammar tables that may be extended. I have a device within arms reach of me right now that's running a 8-bit RISCV that it would be much more difficult to squeeze extensible tables into.
  297. mimi89999 has joined
  298. Arc (its not *really* 8-bit but that's another topic)
  299. Ge0rG Arc: would it make sense to have a grammar caching mechanism similar to entity caps?
  300. Guus Daniel My first gut reaction to trying to create a new something something that's EXI like but not EXI is https://xkcd.com/927/ - but knowing you, you've probably considered that. I'm interested in how a new approach is different in this way.
  301. Ge0rG The client transmits its grammar on first g connection, it's cached on the server, problem solved
  302. Ge0rG The client transmits its grammar on first connection, it's cached on the server, problem solved
  303. Ge0rG On the second connection, the client just sends the sha256 of the grammar, no need to retransmit
  304. Ge0rG When the client software is updated, the new hash isn't known to the server, it requests the new grammar
  305. Ge0rG The server side filtering to known elements would also be good for mobile clients, not just IoT
  306. Guus If I understand Arc correctly, then one of primary issues is that EXI is lacking proper documentation. How much effort would it take to get that fixed? Would we be able to find sponsoring for that, given the impact it could have on certain applications?
  307. Ge0rG We really need to position ourselves as The Solution for IoT
  308. Arc Guus: its not a lack of documentation, its that the docs are terrible and overly verbose, such that its really difficult for people approaching EXI to understand it.
  309. Guus (From what I'm reading just here, at least Arc, Daniel and Dave are dabbling in this field. Is there some corporate backing here?)
  310. Ge0rG Arc: you could write a book!
  311. Arc Ge0rG: that is exactly something I proposed a few years ago, and I now disagree with as an approach. the problem is you don't want to burden the client with that responsibility
  312. Guus Arc sure. "documenation needs work."
  313. Guus Arc sure. "documentation needs work."
  314. dwd Guus, We aren't dabbling at all. My guess would be that Kev (And Isode, more generally) would be more interested than us.
  315. dwd Guus, I'm just EXI-curious. :-)
  316. Guus haha
  317. Guus You're talking about the extremely low-bandwidth type of applications?
  318. Ge0rG Arc: you also said you don't want the grammar to be an external HTTP URL. What's your proposal?
  319. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined
  320. Guus You're talking about the extremely low-bandwidth type of applications that some of their customers are working with?
  321. Arc Guus: not just low bandwidth, but low handware, low cpu, low ram, low battery power. my ultimate goal of EXI isn't to save bandwidth but vastly expand XMPP into the embedded market
  322. Daniel Guus: I was in fact coming from a "let's consider exi" position. Precisely not to reinvent the wheel and to have something that benefits the community. I think the feeling on the other side of the table was that "something like funxmpp" (essential hard coded, preshared lookup table of commonly used elements) is easier to grasp
  323. dwd Guus, Right. Most of our problems are with RTTs and unstable networks - these also apply to Isode's space. Bandwidth isn't great for us, but it's waaay better than some of Isode's cases. Our clients run on consumer smartphones, so we're absolutely not an IoT case.
  324. Daniel Than exi with its 3 modes of operations
  325. Daniel The fact that I don't know a lot about exi didn't help
  326. Arc Ge0rG: that's something to be discussed. I mean a specific XMPP extension for sending a grammar over XMPP would potentially be doable. that way it could never be used for an attack.
  327. Guus Daniel that's fair. But also kind of boils down to the documenation problem with EXI, right?
  328. Daniel But my hope was that starting a broader effort on the exi front might help me convince the other side
  329. Daniel Yeah. Also that there are virtually no libraries
  330. Arc ok sorry as soon as i wrote that last bit I realized how stupid that is. literally anything could be formed into an attack vector by someone determined enough. the local antifa group took down a hate group using craigslist ads.
  331. Guus Arc I understand. I was trying to describe to Dave the customers that I thought were interested in this, without naming names. I wasn't trying to describe all of EXI's benefit.
  332. Daniel I mean if exi was some plug and play thing that you just hook in between things it might be easier
  333. Arc Daniel: yes, and lack of software is absolutely a problem I want to address. libexi is my strategy for that but there's zero funding for it
  334. Ge0rG Arc: the alternative would be a common grammar file format and a central repository, which your server needs to pull from whenever you launch a new version client
  335. Ge0rG Arc: really, I don't see a viable alternative to xmpp based delivery for anything but closed deployments
  336. Arc Ge0rG: yea a "registry" could work.
  337. Ge0rG Arc: but server operators are lazy, and automatic push + pull with a central registry is even worse, security wise
  338. Arc that's something XSF could maintain
  339. Guus I'm probably the least qualified / experienced of people talking here right now, but from what I read here is that EXI has already had quite some work gone into it, but needs some work to be (re)usable (docs and libs). Feels like a shame to replace it with an easier-to-develop (but really, that rarely turns out to be the case) yet less re-usable XMPP-specific solution.
  340. !XSF_Martin has left
  341. !XSF_Martin has joined
  342. dwd Guus, I'll fight you for the least-qualified position. ANd probably lose.
  343. Arc Guus: yes and no. in Java-land EXI is extremely mature. in C-land, not so much. outside of Java there's simple nobody working on XML.
  344. Guus Would it be good to get some people together, and see what amount of resources would be needed to use EXI to get a real-world application, that we can pitch to customers.
  345. Arc there's known 0-days in libxml2 that could easily cost billions in damage and nobody working on it.
  346. Guus Arc well, we have several Java implementations, so that might be a good platform to do some prototyping in XMPP then.
  347. Guus If anything, that could lead to traction.
  348. dwd Arc, Presumably strict-schema mode in EXI would require stricter schemas (ie, entirely immutable schemas) than we have previously used in XMPP?
  349. Arc Google knows about them, so they wrote their own XML library in Go. and Mozilla wrote their own in Rust for servo, which is likely better
  350. dwd Arc, Or can we safely add further attributes with default values (for example) without having to ... recompile? ... the schemas for EXI?
  351. Arc dwd: strict grammar means that any unknown elements, attributes, etc be ignored.
  352. Guus (Which seems to be problematic for the "X" in XMPP?)
  353. Arc Guus: no, it does the same thing in most cases when an unknown element or attribute is received by software. the client you use now for example, if I sent <message ...> <helloworld/><body>hi</body></message> what would it do with the <helloworld/> ?
  354. goffi has joined
  355. Steve Kille has left
  356. Guus ignore
  357. Arc bingo.
  358. dwd Yes, I was thinking it's not a terrible thing, since it's how XMPP works itself.
  359. Arc it just ignores it on the server. another way of looking at EXI is, its as if part of the XML parsing gets moved to the server
  360. Guus but would EXI still pass along the data, which would then be parseble XML?
  361. Arc not if strict is sent.
  362. Arc its a bitflag in the EXI header
  363. Steve Kille has joined
  364. dwd Arc, But the, erm, EXI schema definitions need to be the same on both server and client?
  365. Guus So, if Client A wants to send Client B some data that contains data not understood by the server, how'd that work?
  366. Arc dwd the grammar needs to be the same, yes. the schema informs the grammar.
  367. Arc Guus: if you send me a <message><helloworld/> and I'm connected to my server while specifying "strict" mode, then my server will drop <helloworld/>
  368. Guus If client A sends stuff not understood by the server, which drops data, client B is unlikely to receive that data?
  369. Arc here's what the EXI header looks like, which might be the most readable part of the whole specification
  370. Arc https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#header
  371. Guus Isn't that wildly different as compared to regular XMPP? If a server receives something it doesn't recognize, it'll ignore it, but pass it along.
  372. dwd Guus, Exactly that. Which is why I say it conflicts with the end to end principle.
  373. Arc Guus: the client dictates what grammar to use, not the server.
  374. Guus if EXI doesn't do that...
  375. Steve Kille has left
  376. Kev has left
  377. !XSF_Martin has left
  378. !XSF_Martin has joined
  379. Guus ah ok - so if the client is going to send something, it will (well, _can_) always inform (and thus configure) the receiving end in such a way that it can properly parse all data?
  380. Arc yes.
  381. Guus Right. And the receiving client will have configured the server in a similar way, so that it can be send all data that it'll be able to interpret.
  382. Zash So the server still needs to shuffle some generic XML representation internally?
  383. Zash Can an EXI client even send something not part of the schema/grammar?
  384. Guus (Can that grammar be re-negotiated? For example when new plugin gets dynamically loaded that introduces new goodies)
  385. Arc Zash: yes there's really no way around that because the clients, in most cases, will be speaking different grammars. and no the client cannot encode new things in strict encoding.
  386. Arc Guus: I don't believe so, the "schemaId" gets sent as part of the EXI header. though the XEP could include a specific stream-level message to renegotiate the EXI?
  387. Guus Somewhat of an edge case
  388. Guus dwd with the above, does your concern regarding end to end principle hold?
  389. Guus as with Arc explanaition, I'm thinking that it at least _migth_ work 🙂
  390. Arc yea in those cases I think reconnecting is perfectly fine. but there is the "fragment" option in the EXI header too, such that you're specifying that you're not sending the whole XML document from <root> to </root> but only part of it.
  391. dwd Guus, Well, I said it conflicts, and it does, but that's not a blocker.
  392. Guus how does it conflict?
  393. Arc in that case yes even without an XMPP stream-level support, if you wanted to change options on the fly, you could. with obvious security concern of trying to DDoS a server by flooding it with different schemaId's to be retrieved from a ... "grammar registry"
  394. Guus client A won't be able to send client B data that client B doesn't know how to parse. That?
  395. Guus Arc I'm unsure if those conerns are obvious, but sure 🙂
  396. dwd The end-to-end principle essentially says that end-clients care about more layers than intermediate routers. That's always been prtty shaky in XMPP anyway, since the server is often an end-client in that sense.
  397. sjaak has left
  398. sjaak has joined
  399. Guus That's way to abstract for me to understand without loads more coffee.
  400. Arc what about being able to block JIDs? I mean, the client is literally instructing the server to drop unknown content, that's not unlike instructing the server to not send content from certain JIDs?
  401. Guus (but you said 'no blocker' which I'm happy to accept)
  402. Zash To the coffee machine!
  403. Arc wow its 2am here.
  404. dwd Arc, It's armageddon here, for comparison.
  405. Guus At least there's clarity... ?
  406. dwd Yes, our doom can be seen very clearly.
  407. Arc oh yea that's right, I completely forgot I jumped back in xsf to ask for recommendations for a xmpp library with pubsub support for rust
  408. sjaak has left
  409. sjaak has joined
  410. Guus Dutch weather is as miserable as yours this time of year. We'd be happy to have you 🙂
  411. dwd Arc, Rust... I'm not sure there's a stand-out library for Rust. I'd be interested to see one.
  412. Arc i recognized a few names from the cargo package list
  413. dwd Guus, I have given it some thought. Not much less convenient for travel to the office. But it'd mean moving my daughter's schooling at this point, which'd be tricky.
  414. Guus Isn't that why you learned the other kid to fly? Commute solved.
  415. lorddavidiii has left
  416. Guus So, if we want to (and there seems interest, judging by this conversation) want to move forward with EXI in XMPP world, what would we need? It might be good to come up with an estimate of the effort involved, to be able to attract sponsorship for this.
  417. dwd And his license is an EU one, so covers him. No, I've genuinely thought about this.
  418. Arc Guus: I would really appreciate having a working group, even an informal one.
  419. Guus dwd it's a sucky situation. At least now, things will need to be solved pragmatically. Hopefully, things turn out less bad than what you've now envision.
  420. Guus And face it, it could be worse: Farage at no 10?
  421. kokonoe has left
  422. Guus *shiver*
  423. Guus Arc we can do that easily. Who'd be willing to dedicate their effort into that?
  424. Arc beyond the big issues like how to communicate grammar, there's a ton of small ones which need to be determined. like a standard set of fidelity options for XMPP. the spec is not a small job.
  425. Arc https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#fidelityOptions
  426. Zash Schemas being non-normative is also fun I imagine
  427. dwd Guus, https://twitter.com/DwdDave/status/1205426678639579136 - I'm desperately trying to find some positive outcomes.
  428. Arc Zash: yea. well that's also the difference between schema and grammar :-) schema informs grammar, but grammar is the actual bytestream format
  429. Arc schema cannot, by itself, construct a grammar. grammar is weighted, so unless you have some very cool code monitoring a connection and creating an optimized grammar for you, a human will actually write the grammar based on the schema
  430. Arc https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#grammars
  431. Guus Arc fwiw, my preferred way of working would be to _first_ come up with a proposal on how to get EXI in XMPP realized, with estimated effort requirements, budgets, etc, before digging into the actual implementation details. My goal would be to first secure funding.
  432. Guus Or: have the information needed to secure funding.
  433. Arc you have a sponsor in mind to fund such work? :-)
  434. Guus Two.
  435. Guus but neither will bite without a proper plan.
  436. Arc that's excellent. I can't get companies here, even those already using XMPP, to bite.
  437. Guus Things should ideally be as concrete as: for this amount of money, you get this feature.
  438. Arc *nod*
  439. larma has left
  440. Guus So, how do we get to there?
  441. Guus (assuming we want to spend effort on this)
  442. Arc well ive got 5+ years implementation experience on EXI but I'm not a working group.
  443. Guus What would you need from a working group?
  444. Arc 2 other people willing to invest the brain space to understand this 96 page technical document
  445. Guus (we can ask Board to make you a Working Group, but I'm sensing that that's not what you're after 😛 )
  446. Arc its not the official-ness of the group im concerned with, its the brains.
  447. Guus Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at.
  448. Guus any takers?
  449. Guus eyes room
  450. Guus it's less than 100 pages people!
  451. Guus ducks.
  452. Arc I'm happy to help people get up to speed. and honestly most of it is just a few pages in the EXI header specs, and understanding the grammar
  453. dwd I'm not sure I can commit to working hihg-intensity on this.
  454. larma has joined
  455. Arc there's also this super cute (and not terribly useful) primer https://www.w3.org/TR/exi-primer/
  456. Guus I personally won't commit unless I can find funding for it.
  457. kokonoe has joined
  458. Arc yea ive been without funding on this for all this time. I've met with a few companies and received some useful feedback but everyone just wants it for free.
  459. Arc though I learned Google has their own internal implementation written in Go
  460. Guus I admire you for doing that. It's not an investment I'd want to make myself.
  461. Arc apparently they already use it for push notifications?
  462. Arc I'm working on the premise of future marketability for libexi, given there's really nothing like it in existence. AGPL license it, and offer commercial LGPL-like exceptions, akin to wolfssl
  463. sjaak has left
  464. sjaak has joined
  465. Guus Do you want to drive an effort to find people for an XSF work team for this, Arc ?
  466. Arc yea but it might be from people not currently in the XSF
  467. dwd Arc, Sounds even better.
  468. Arc we dont have a ton of java people and that's really where we need. i'm absolutely not a java person
  469. Guus XSF Bylaws: "Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the Corporation."
  470. Guus <-- java
  471. Arc Q1 2020 membership page is open
  472. dwd Right, Guus is the most Java person I know.
  473. dwd Guus, You work around this by having a Work Team preside over a Special Interest Group, the latter being open to anyone.
  474. dwd Guus, Then the WOrk Team is basically devoted to getting people to understand and work with the process.
  475. Guus You like burning hoops and making people jump through them, don't you?
  476. Guus but, whatever. We will find some kind of venue to discuss this, one way or the other.
  477. Arc Guus: well since you're a java person :-) :-) :-)
  478. sjaak has left
  479. sjaak has joined
  480. Guus Arc I'll be as clear / blunt as Dutchies are known for: I'm definitely interested, but won't commit large amounts of effort without funding. If it boils down to doing this, or paid work, I'll go for paid work. I'm totally open to put in time to come up with data that can be used to secure funding.
  481. Arc I'm in the same state. Rent needs to be paid.
  482. Guus Hence my preferred order of things: first, do only what's needed to come up with budget estimates.
  483. Guus It would be awesome of others want to work under less strict conditions, but I personally choose not to.
  484. Arc certainly. libexi is something I've considered a hobby for now, and will continue to.
  485. Guus My problem is that I don't even have a grasp of the amount of effort that's required to get this to even a prototype state.
  486. Arc are you talking a spec or working code?
  487. Guus working code. My customers are unlikely to be interested in just a spec.
  488. Guus "for x amount of USD, you get EXI benefit A, B and C"
  489. Guus I'm not sure if that's the best first goal for us to work on, but I feel that that'd give me something I can use to try and secure funding.
  490. Arc the spec is going to end up being 20-30 pages. some working code in Java using an existing Java libraries? once the spec is done.. I don't imagine that being very long.
  491. Guus If others have another approach, I'd love to hear about that. I'm just winging it here.
  492. Arc from my side, a lot of my work has been in not just implementing EXI but using grammar to generate source code, and breaking the code up such that you can compile it with different options removed to save space
  493. Arc but thats all rust/C
  494. Arc and splatterings of assembly
  495. Guus 😱
  496. Arc mozilla just recently declined sponsoring the work which would have gone into Servo. :-l but they made sure to jab the knife in my gut with the typical line "if you release it in an MPL compatible license we'd be happy to support it in Servo"
  497. stpeter has joined
  498. debacle has joined
  499. Guus yeah, I bet they would.
  500. Daniel has left
  501. Daniel has joined
  502. Guus I've tried to boil down what I'd like to know, before formulating a question to my customers. It's stupidly simple, but I find that that often helps coming up with concrete plans: https://etherpad.net/p/exi
  503. Guus I'd like that to be filled out.
  504. Arc at least they didn't drag me along with a job interview like a few companies have before telling me how they'll "love to support me by using my freely licensed software". one company asked for an hour presentation for their protocol team on EXI as part of the "interview" before telling me they'll join my "cause" if I change the license to permissive.
  505. Guus But I lack the knowledge to do that myself. Is this somethign we could work on?
  506. Arc I could contribute to it.
  507. Arc you want to find a Java EXI library and run some performance tests on it?
  508. Arc I know basic network performance for XMPP
  509. Arc I know that you *wont* get the 40x gains that I'm seeing from Java but you'll likely get 20x speed gains
  510. Arc the speed gains are largely the CPU cost of a string comparison. W3C did their own but I don't know what software they based it on, failing anything else you could grab some graphics from the EXI primer
  511. Arc er https://www.w3.org/TR/exi-measurements/
  512. Guus I'm updating that etherpad with the rough estimates that you have. I don't intend to send what is typed there verbatim. I'm fine with rough outlines, for now
  513. Arc outside IoT yea those speedups are the largest perk. especially on the server side.
  514. Guus those would be speedups in XML parsing right?
  515. Arc bandwidth and CPU cost money. saving bandwidth and CPU saves money.
  516. Guus what about bandwidth savings?
  517. Arc both parsing and creation, but yes. both sides
  518. Arc it depends on the data in all cases. IoT with float and int data obviously gets the best gains.
  519. Guus regular chat
  520. Guus ballpark it
  521. Zash "funxmpp"-like approach would get you bandwidth savings at the cost of CPU I imagine?
  522. Daniel > "funxmpp"-like approach would get you bandwidth savings at the cost of CPU I imagine? Probably. But CPU isn't our bottle neck at the moment
  523. stpeter has left
  524. Arc regular chat? you'll be using byte packed mode without the precompression option, qname tables under 250 in size, so "message" would be 1 byte, "from" is one byte. "to" is one byte. the JIDs would likely be one byte each. so SE-"Message" AT="from" "guus@yourhost.isgreat" AT="to" "arc@myhost.islong" ...message... EE would be around 60 bytes to around 6 bytes. so the message stanza overhead would be only around 10%
  525. Arc CPU processing speed, well see the measurements for the various java tools
  526. Arc with byte packed, you can assume that the qname for each element and attribute is 1 byte. and the string table for JIDs are 1 byte too. extra attributes like id= will add to the cost. and unique strings... if memory serves you can set the value for some attributes to not be cached since they're unique or not commonly reused. so the length of the id= attribute would be unchanged
  527. Guus right, but 'regular chat' traffic also includes a bunch of IQ and Presence stanzas. I'm thinking that most of the data would be pretty dictionairy-able, with the exception of the chat message texts?
  528. Arc exactly.
  529. Arc that's why i said overhead :-)
  530. Guus average stanza character count in my MAM archive appears to be 185
  531. Arc ok and whats the average body length for those message stanzas?
  532. !XSF_Martin has left
  533. Arc i mean i forgot the id= and the body element, so you have SE-"body", etc. but ballpark its a huge bandwidth saving
  534. Guus average body char count is 64
  535. Guus note that I'm doing stupid SQL queries on a bucket load of crappy data
  536. !XSF_Martin has joined
  537. larma And even if CPU isn't a bottleneck right now, saving on CPU is a great thing, because it reduces energy consumption on portable devices
  538. Guus so, what's the huge ballpark saving? 🙂
  539. Arc so average message header is 121, and we can reasonably say that can be represented in under 12 bytes.
  540. Arc so the message header would be 10x smaller. or the entirety of the message about 40% smaller.
  541. Arc but iq and presence nodes would reduce that further
  542. Arc ive never worked with that server but my own experience says that you should be able to double the number of stanzas routed per second. and thats exceedingly conservative
  543. Arc its likely closer to 10x
  544. Guus assuming that parsing is the bottleneck
  545. dwd Parsing is almost always the bottleneck.
  546. Arc yea you can't control things like disk or network. but parsing, most notably string matching, is usually the bottleneck
  547. Arc JIDs are being passed with a specific ID# instead of a string, so if done well you can optimize the crap out of that.
  548. Arc but even ignoring JIDs you've got the qnames. and that's a big part of it too
  549. Zash Isn't that a security problem?
  550. Arc not really, the JIDs to ID# is per connection only. they're just cached.
  551. Guus Cool. Updated my EXI-budget-for-Dummies at https://etherpad.net/p/exi
  552. Guus What work do we need to do for this?
  553. Arc https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#encodingOptimizedForMisses details it but very basically, the first time "zash@ishome" is sent its cached at a specific lookup ID, and then that ID is used on that specific stream
  554. Arc you already have java libraries implementing EXI so your work is much simpler. most of the time will be on the XEP.
  555. Guus we'd probably want at least one client library too
  556. Guus Smack is Java...
  557. Arc sure. smack sounds good. ideally with a different library.
  558. Arc there's a few javascript libraries too
  559. Arc last I looked they all implement only the core functionality and you need to provide the grammar as a file
  560. Arc ((that's fine for a client))
  561. Arc i mean, for the client you shouldnt even need a library. you can hardcode values.
  562. Guus (note that I'm basing this very specific though experiment on implementations that I'm familiar with - I'm not trying to hijack this for my implementations at all, even if it starts to look like that now)
  563. Arc no you're fine. by no means would i want to intermangle my work into this
  564. Guus I'm also looking around the room
  565. Arc i made the mistake of leaking the source for libexi a few years ago and I still get email in korean asking for support
  566. Guus is EXI suitable for federation?
  567. sonny has left
  568. Guus client A -> server A -> server B -> client B ... even if client A and B share a vocabulary, servers A and B might not share the same?
  569. Arc S2S? absolutely. with a very broad grammar and without "strict" so that grammar can grow
  570. Guus what's the implication of 'strict' exactly? More performance?
  571. Arc non-strict... in XMPP terms, say you have four options for the scope inside <stream:stream>; <message>, <iq>, <presence>, and </stream:stream> - right?
  572. Arc strict would encode that as 4 options, or when bitpacked 2 bits
  573. Arc non-strict would encode that as 5 options with the final option being "something I didn't expect"
  574. Guus right, so, performance.
  575. Guus you want strict where possible, because it compresses better.
  576. Guus I need to be paying attention to other stuff shortly.
  577. Arc yes, minorly for bandwidth, more for CPU.
  578. Arc its 3:30am here so I really need to be doing other stuff shortly. ie, becoming unconsciousness and hopefully hallucinating vividly
  579. Guus Right. I like having been able to come up with the roughest of sketches.
  580. Guus Let's see if we can build on this later.
  581. Arc sure.
  582. !XSF_Martin has left
  583. Arc feels like progress though, that's really great :-)
  584. !XSF_Martin has joined
  585. Tobias has left
  586. Guus agreed
  587. Guus ok, thanks!
  588. Guus I'll grab some lunch and get other stuff done
  589. Guus sleep tight!
  590. Arc I was just re-reading https://www.w3.org/TR/exi-primer/#encoding and its actually .. a lot better than I remember.
  591. Arc i mean, wall of text is intimidating but if you walk through it and compare to the binary below its very informative, if cumbersome
  592. Arc but yea, g'night
  593. Tobias has joined
  594. pep. "Arc> oh yea that's right, I completely forgot I jumped back in xsf to ask for recommendations for a xmpp library with pubsub support for rust" < We have no funding, but there's xmpp-rs (xmpp:chat@xmpp.rs?join), You might be able to reuse bits and pieces, and otherwise we'd be happy to have a use-case (and people contributing)
  595. Wojtek has joined
  596. arc has left
  597. arc has joined
  598. pep. I don't think there's many more people working on Rust publicly atm, it'd be a shame to split already.
  599. arc has left
  600. arc has joined
  601. pep. dwd, ^
  602. Shell has joined
  603. pdurbin has joined
  604. dwd I wasn't suggesting a split. Just noting I wasn't sure there was an existing standout library.
  605. pep. Not that it's really usable yet but we'd like to get funding for it so we can spend more time
  606. kokonoe has left
  607. sonny has joined
  608. Shell has left
  609. kokonoe has joined
  610. !XSF_Martin has left
  611. alameyo has left
  612. alameyo has joined
  613. stpeter has joined
  614. !XSF_Martin has joined
  615. !XSF_Martin has left
  616. !XSF_Martin has joined
  617. beta has left
  618. Daniel has left
  619. Daniel has joined
  620. pdurbin has left
  621. stpeter has left
  622. APach has left
  623. APach has joined
  624. lovetox has joined
  625. holger has joined
  626. holger has left
  627. holger has joined
  628. holger has left
  629. holger has joined
  630. marc_ has left
  631. !XSF_Martin has left
  632. !XSF_Martin has joined
  633. marc_ has joined
  634. !XSF_Martin has left
  635. adiaholic has left
  636. adiaholic has joined
  637. waqas has joined
  638. holger has left
  639. holger has joined
  640. !XSF_Martin has joined
  641. holger has left
  642. holger has joined
  643. dwd "I’m not immediately sure that what I was saying didn’t make sense." - thanks, Kev, for making that clear...
  644. marc_ has left
  645. holger has left
  646. moparisthebest has joined
  647. mathijs has left
  648. mathijs has joined
  649. holger has joined
  650. Guus You mean: "thanks, Kev, for not making that unclear"
  651. holger has left
  652. holger has joined
  653. kokonoe has left
  654. mathijs has left
  655. mathijs has joined
  656. holger has left
  657. holger has joined
  658. holger has left
  659. holger has joined
  660. holger has left
  661. holger has joined
  662. holger has left
  663. holger has joined
  664. UṣL has left
  665. holger has left
  666. holger has joined
  667. stpeter has joined
  668. kokonoe has joined
  669. alameyo has left
  670. alameyo has joined
  671. !XSF_Martin has left
  672. holger has left
  673. holger has joined
  674. holger has left
  675. holger has joined
  676. dwd Guus, It'd be wrong to say I'm not certain that wouldn't have been worse.
  677. Kev has joined
  678. Guus I agree.
  679. Kev You're welcome.
  680. Guus (I just guessed a response)
  681. jonas’ Failed to parse sentence: resource limit exceeded while processing negations.
  682. !XSF_Martin has joined
  683. Yagiza has left
  684. Yagiza has joined
  685. stpeter has left
  686. Kev Everyone does like to pick on my English :p
  687. Guus In fairness, your Hungarian is worse.
  688. Guus (again, guessing)
  689. Kev It's not impossible.
  690. dwd Guus, My Hungarian used to be pretty good, but these days I just use simpler vairable names and a better IDE.
  691. marc_ has joined
  692. Kev dwd: I think you're actually saying in that thread that the IETF now has 4 stages, which is roughly what I'm proposing for the XSF (modelled on Flo's suggestion).
  693. Kev That is, I'm suggesting we have Individual I-Ds, which are numberless.
  694. dwd Kev, No, the IETF dropped a stage. It did have 4 indeed.
  695. Kev And the acceptance for /those/ could be mechanical.
  696. Kev It had five, now it has four, no? If you count Individual and WG as distinct.
  697. Daniel > That is, I'm suggesting we have Individual I-Ds, which are numberless. I was going to suggest that after what dwd wrote
  698. dwd Yes, that's fair.
  699. Kev So we could have an entirely mechanical numberless stage that gets it published and under IPR.
  700. Kev More or less inbox-plus.
  701. dwd FWIW, I'd be fine with having those numbered. Although given that people get excited that we have lots of XEPs, there's that risk.
  702. Kev Experimental becomes roughly what it is (effectively) now, which is that it's a direction Council wants to see investigated.
  703. Daniel Versioned inbox
  704. Kev dwd: I think the numbers are part of the problem.
  705. Kev dwd: I think "It's been published and assigned a number" is what makes the issue with accepting knowing it needs significant changes.
  706. pep. I really need to catchup on standards@
  707. Kev By having the first stage be "It doesn't have a number yet", it makes the risk of it being published and then people saying "Well, it's been standardised, it can't be changed" much lower, I think.
  708. Kev 1) Published without number. Anything goes, mechanical acceptance (maybe with a check that it's not just "Screw the Establishment" 5000 times or something, but anything goes. 2) Experimental. Anything goes quality-wise, but confirmation it's a direction the Council think should be investigated. 3) Draft as-is (but maybe a lower barrier) 4) Final as-is (but...)
  709. Kev Which is actually not a million miles away from how the IETF works, by my understanding. Not strictly equivalent, but it has similar properties.
  710. pdurbin has joined
  711. Kev And yes, Daniel, it is very similar to the inbox, in as much as there's no comment on quality, just that it's for future consideration.
  712. Daniel > "Well, it's been standardised, it can't be changed" much lower, I think. I think the argument usually goes: we had to implemt something that wasn't ready and ship it because the users were asking for this feature and we couldn't wait five years and now we kinda have to consider dealing with legacy
  713. Daniel I think those considerations are independent of numbers or stage names
  714. Kev Which I do think is important. I don't think another stage of Council review and etc. is going to add anything.
  715. Kev Daniel: I boldy assert that I've heard both types of claims.
  716. Kev Nothing we do about versioning or numbering or stages will effect changes in "I had to deploy something now, so I did a thing". But the other side we can do something about.
  717. marc_ has left
  718. Zash Hiw do you get the process to handle that?
  719. pdurbin has left
  720. Kev Zash: I think the first stage helps with that. You can get it published but not advanced to Experimental, and thus not yet have a number assigned, and still be called Proto-XEP.
  721. dwd So what does "Experimental" mean, and what would be the guidance to Council?
  722. Zash Won't stop people from deploying and causing the same problem?
  723. Kev "Council considers this is an appropriate direction to be directing investigation" or something.
  724. Kev So when Council sees a spec and says "This is a problem that needs solving, but this isn't the appropriate way to do it", they can hold it in (1) for a while. It's still been published, it's still versioned, it's still IPRd.
  725. Zash I-Ds get deployed and entrenched if people need and implement them
  726. holger has left
  727. holger has joined
  728. Kev Zash: Yes, as I said, you can't effect any change in "I had to do a thing so I did a thing".
  729. Kev Zash: You can address "This is now a standard, everyone should be implementing it", I hope.
  730. Kev So Reactions would have been able to be published by now, even though it needs to be framed in terms of a common approach (e.g. Fastening), it just wouldn't be Experimental yet.
  731. Kev Fastening might or might not have reached Experimental (I think the direction is right, FWIW, but that might not be clear enough, who knows).
  732. Kev Several of the things (IM2?) I've pushed out full of TODOs because we needed something published for discussion etc. would have stayed out of Experimental, at least for a while.
  733. !XSF_Martin has left
  734. Kev I'm not suggesting, FWIW, raising the barrier of Experimental to "This must be implementable and interoperable from the spec as-written". I think it's a good aim for all specs, but I think it's probably fine to leave some hand-waving in places.
  735. MattJ I'm in favour of anything that prevents XEPs being assigned numbers while having entire sections consist of "TODO: Figure this thing out"
  736. MattJ and then sitting there for years
  737. Daniel > I'm in favour of anything that prevents XEPs being assigned numbers while having entire sections consist of "TODO: Figure this thing out" Yes. People at the very least need to be able to write prototype implementations
  738. MattJ Interoperable ones, at that
  739. Kev As above, I'm not convinced that Experimental needs to be entirely baked to the point that interop is guaranteed. I think it's fine for it to be genuinely an Experiment with questions that still need answering.
  740. Kev I'd like to introduce a new stage at the low end, not to life the existing stages.
  741. !XSF_Martin has joined
  742. Daniel > I'd like to introduce a new stage at the low end, not to life the existing stages. We can do both. Introduce something at the low end end slightly raise the barrier for experimental (from what is described in xep1) to something which we are kinda doing now already
  743. Daniel I think introducing super-inbox also lowers the pressure of trying to become experimental
  744. Kev I think that last point is very desirable.
  745. kokonoe has left
  746. Kev I would like to still see Experimental able to hold experiments that don't have all the answers. I think requiring it to be fully baked before Experimental wouldn't be the best choice. But I think allowing *everything* relevant to be published seems very desirable.
  747. Kev There is then no inbox, essentially. ProtoXEP is a stage in the process, rather than a colloquialism.
  748. Kev We might still choose to have them stored in the inbox/ path on the site, for various reasons, but it's a Real Thing rather than just somewhere for Council to look at things on their way to Experimental.
  749. Kev (And we could do all this without even formally changing our process, although I suggest it would be a good idea to do so)
  750. pep. Daniel, I'm going to be the one picking on details as usual but "stable it has to be stable." doesn't mean much. The XSF would also need to define their version of "stable".
  751. pep. (reading the thread)
  752. Zash Things might change anyways
  753. pep. will.
  754. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left
  755. Daniel Ultimately the decision on how much leftover TODOs are OK will still be acceptable. But if experimental becomes (as it de-facto has been for a while now) a 'only thing that council agrees is a good direction' and not 'everything goes' as xep1 spells it out to be I think I want more formal readiness (meaning not _just_ TODOs)
  756. pep. To me this thread and discussions scream "People are afraid of change"
  757. pep. Introducing or removing a stage won't change this I believe
  758. Daniel Otherwise it sends a weird message when xeps that "some random people on the internet don't agree with" become accepted and on the other hand we have xeps that are really just stubs someone wrote in 20 minutes
  759. pep. Final is never final. Another XEP someday will come to replace it
  760. pep. (And to me it's exactly the same as changing that Final XEP in the first place..)
  761. Daniel Otherwise it sends a weird message when xeps that "some random people on the internet don't agree with" don't get accepted and on the other hand we have xeps that are really just stubs someone wrote in 20 minutes
  762. Kev Daniel: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Experimental should be a stub. Just that it doesn't have to be complete. I have certainly published XEPs to Experimental with my name on that I would not have needed to be Experimental if we had the ProtoXEP stage.
  763. stpeter has joined
  764. Kev I'm also fine for Experimental to remain a judgement call of Council.
  765. Kev And I'm also fine with trying to update XEP1 to describe Experimental as it is being used currently, rather than necessarily what it suggests, if it suggests otherwise.
  766. Kev And then Peter appears for an informed opinion :)
  767. marc_ has joined
  768. intosi has left
  769. marc_ has left
  770. calvin has joined
  771. mtavares has left
  772. stpeter has left
  773. patrick has joined
  774. mtavares has joined
  775. holger has left
  776. marc_ has joined
  777. kokonoe has joined
  778. intosi has joined
  779. mukt2 has joined
  780. karoshi has left
  781. karoshi has joined
  782. Steve Kille has joined
  783. Wojtek has left
  784. karoshi has left
  785. karoshi has joined
  786. j.r has left
  787. Maranda has left
  788. Maranda has joined
  789. Wojtek has joined
  790. mathijs has left
  791. marc_ has left
  792. calvin has left
  793. calvin has joined
  794. Steve Kille has left
  795. mathijs has joined
  796. mukt2 has left
  797. mukt2 has joined
  798. Steve Kille has joined
  799. mathijs has left
  800. !XSF_Martin has left
  801. !XSF_Martin has joined
  802. mukt2 has left
  803. mathijs has joined
  804. mathijs has left
  805. pdurbin has joined
  806. mathijs has joined
  807. kokonoe has left
  808. mukt2 has joined
  809. j.r has joined
  810. pdurbin has left
  811. !XSF_Martin has left
  812. marc_ has joined
  813. stpeter has joined
  814. larma has left
  815. !XSF_Martin has joined
  816. larma has joined
  817. calvin has left
  818. marc_ has left
  819. kokonoe has joined
  820. mukt2 has left
  821. patrick has left
  822. kokonoe has left
  823. marc_ has joined
  824. stpeter has left
  825. mathijs has left
  826. mathijs has joined
  827. kokonoe has joined
  828. marc_ has left
  829. !XSF_Martin has left
  830. mukt2 has joined
  831. intosi has left
  832. !XSF_Martin has joined
  833. mathijs has left
  834. mathijs has joined
  835. Arc pep.: I looked at xmpp-rs but is it asyncio?
  836. pep. "which one", atm it's using tokio behind, we started having a look at async-std. tokio 0.2 uses the keywords fwiw
  837. Arc yea I was looking at the tokio one
  838. mukt2 has left
  839. Arc this is for playerd and therefore two basic requirements; async and good pubsub support
  840. pep. What's playerd?
  841. mukt2 has joined
  842. pep. "good pubsub support" is not there at all. (We barely have messages in that high-level API), but I'd happily work on that :)
  843. mathijs has left
  844. mathijs has joined
  845. Arc in short playerd is intended to provide game console '-like player management cross-platform; ie, input->player mapping, user profiles, and the basic XMPP-IM functionality like friends lists and chat
  846. Arc imagine on any game console what happens when you press the system button on a controller
  847. pep. I see
  848. Arc most games don't support this on any non-console platform. even on Steam (which has the best of this right now) when you load a game with two players you end up having to physically swap controllers when the game opens and you discover you have them backwards
  849. mukt2 has left
  850. gav has left
  851. gav has joined
  852. mukt2 has joined
  853. !XSF_Martin has left
  854. marc_ has joined
  855. Arc btw we have a whole new group of teenagers discovering the joys of XMPP right now
  856. pep. we?
  857. Arc copyleft games
  858. Arc gci@chat.copyleftgames.org MUC
  859. dwd Arc, This library able to be used in commercial games, or only GPL?
  860. pep. Pidgin is so much fail :x
  861. Arc dwd: playerd is intended to be permissive
  862. !XSF_Martin has joined
  863. Arc the code itself is AGPL right now though. the intention is to put a LGPL-like exception on it to allow it to be used by non-copyleft games
  864. dwd Arc, Cool. I've heard some rumblings that Epic and others are struggling with XMPP, but perhaps some demonstrations that it has broader utility might help.
  865. Arc valve reached out to us about playerd a bit ago too for the same reason, which gave me some hope that steam could broaden their xmpp support
  866. dwd Arc, Does Steam use XMPP at all?
  867. pep. That's what I understand from this sentence :x
  868. Arc from what little I could gleam (since the valve person was under NDA that I didn't sign) they have XMPP at some place internally but currently expose some "Steamworks IM" protocol to games, and there's a lot of pressure from gamedevs to use XMPP instead, so that led them to look into offering an alternative protocol
  869. dwd Oh, interesting. Perhaps Board could try to get into contact and see what we could offer?
  870. marc_ has left
  871. stpeter has joined
  872. pep. What can the XSF offer at all? "Hey we can propose you more protocols!" :)
  873. dwd I don't know, but some contact might answer that question.
  874. mukt2 has left
  875. Arc they dont need more protocols :-)
  876. Arc playerd uses common sense stuff
  877. Zash which XEP is that;
  878. mukt2 has joined
  879. Wojciech Kapcia has joined
  880. Wojciech Kapcia has left
  881. Nekit has left
  882. kokonoe has left
  883. mukt2 has left
  884. kokonoe has joined
  885. arc has left
  886. arc has joined
  887. mukt2 has joined
  888. sjaak has left
  889. sjaak has joined
  890. Yagiza has left
  891. pdurbin has joined
  892. Kev has left
  893. !XSF_Martin has left
  894. Wojtek has left
  895. Wojtek has joined
  896. pdurbin has left
  897. mukt2 has left
  898. mukt2 has joined
  899. !XSF_Martin has joined
  900. holger has joined
  901. calvin has joined
  902. arc has left
  903. arc has joined
  904. Wojtek has left
  905. sjaak has left
  906. sjaak has joined
  907. sjaak has left
  908. sjaak has joined
  909. sjaak has left
  910. sjaak has joined
  911. sjaak has left
  912. sjaak has joined
  913. sjaak has left
  914. sjaak has joined
  915. sjaak has left
  916. sjaak has joined
  917. kokonoe has left
  918. sjaak has left
  919. sjaak has joined
  920. kokonoe has joined
  921. debacle has left
  922. Nekit has joined
  923. !XSF_Martin has left
  924. Arc for playerd? I haven't submitted one
  925. adiaholic has left
  926. Arc btw do we have a XEP for Oauth2 SASL negotiation?
  927. calvin has left
  928. calvin has joined
  929. Arc as in RFC 7628 as applied to XMPP? even a best practices one?
  930. !XSF_Martin has joined
  931. APach has left
  932. Arc XMPP is referred to in the RFC
  933. sjaak has left
  934. sjaak has joined
  935. Arc but the RFC more or less starts after you have the bearer token. it doesn't really dig deep into how XMPP clients get that token
  936. Zash I also seem to miss how that's supposed to work.
  937. Arc oauth2 is a pretty big spec and covers use cases like keyboard-less UI.
  938. Arc consider a teen with the tech savy of the average iphone user, sitting down with a game controller and wants to "log in. oauth2 supports this, but its not very obvious how the xmpp client would.
  939. Zash I kinda get the impression that OAuth only works if you're web-based.
  940. Arc ideally they'll get a short URL plus a qr code on the screen to access on their phone to log in via phone-based web browser, or any other browser
  941. Arc nope. it works in all cases - and that's my point
  942. Arc you can log your smart fridge in with no form of input at all
  943. beta has joined
  944. Arc fridge would just give you a URL to access to log it in
  945. Arc like, "Go to HTTPS://AUTH.GE.COM/H8C0 to login" with an all-caps qrcode (all caps qrcodes use fewer bits to encode so easier bigger squares, easier to scan)
  946. beta has left
  947. stpeter has left
  948. beta has joined
  949. Arc the fridge keeps accessing a https url and receives a authorization_pending error response over and over until you actually log it in. and if you take very long the server will send a "expired_token" error, in which case the fridge will have to start over often with a new URL.
  950. Arc but once you login on your phone or laptop or whatever, the fridge will get a response containing the bearer token that it can use to actually login
  951. sjaak has left
  952. sjaak has joined
  953. Arc usually the server will wait a few seconds on each request before sending the authorization_pending error, so that the exact moment the login is completed the fridge can be sent the bearer token. in production there's virtually no delay at all.
  954. Arc desktop XMPP clients can do the same; you just launch a web browser on the url instead of showing it to them on a screen. you don't need a response from the browser.
  955. matkor has left
  956. matkor has joined
  957. Zash "just launch a web browser" :(
  958. Arc desktop client runs "browser-open" command with url "https://login.google.com/bla". it doesn't need to get anything back from the browser
  959. Arc there's a standard way to open a URL via default browser on every modern OS
  960. jonas’ so, yes, web-only
  961. Arc web-only for login yes. but not for web XMPP clients only
  962. j.r has left
  963. Arc here's two lines of Python code to do this from every OS: import webbrowser webbrowser.open(oauth2_url)
  964. andrey.g has left
  965. Arc it will return True.
  966. Arc seriously the whole client handshake is maybe 30 lines of python, tops. my point being is if you're not versed in oauth2 this is very non-obvious so a XEP would be useful. IMHO every XMPP client should be using bearer tokens for account security. for account security every XMPP server should only accept oauth2 bearer tokens.
  967. holger has left
  968. Zash But, requiring a web browser, I don't want that
  969. Zash Assume that I explode if I have to evaluate JavaScript. How do I OAuth?
  970. j.r has joined
  971. krauq has left
  972. Guus Preferably at a safe distance from other combustibles.
  973. mathijs has left
  974. mathijs has joined
  975. pdurbin has joined
  976. sjaak has left
  977. sjaak has joined
  978. mathijs has left
  979. mathijs has joined
  980. calvin has left
  981. sonny has left
  982. pdurbin has left
  983. j.r has left
  984. sjaak has left
  985. sjaak has joined
  986. mr.fister has joined
  987. kokonoe has left
  988. Steve Kille has left
  989. !XSF_Martin has left
  990. larma Zash, I don't think there is a reason why OAuth would require JavaScript (beside most implementations certainly will)
  991. krauq has joined
  992. !XSF_Martin has joined
  993. Arc Zash: OAuth is a web api. but its completely conceivable, if you write your own oauth2 web client, to use a simple HTTPS form. oauth2 can be implemented entirely server-side
  994. Arc or better yet write it in rust and compile to wasm
  995. kokonoe has joined
  996. Arc without a web browser at all is hard since oauth2 is a standardized web api
  997. calvin has joined
  998. david has left
  999. david has joined
  1000. adiaholic has joined
  1001. stpeter has joined
  1002. j.r has joined
  1003. calvin has left
  1004. Nekit has left
  1005. !XSF_Martin has left
  1006. Ge0rG I didn't know that browsers are the only operating system for APIs
  1007. !XSF_Martin has joined
  1008. adiaholic has left
  1009. sjaak has left
  1010. sjaak has joined
  1011. sjaak has left
  1012. sjaak has joined
  1013. calvin has joined
  1014. calvin has left
  1015. calvin has joined
  1016. !XSF_Martin has left
  1017. !XSF_Martin has joined
  1018. calvin has left
  1019. calvin has joined
  1020. calvin has left
  1021. debacle has joined
  1022. Arc Ge0rG: lets be real, in the real world 95%+ of software devs are web developers and we're <<looks at the XSF membership>> far too few to write everything. But web devs are limited, and thankfully still need us or we'd all be unemployable.
  1023. sjaak has left
  1024. sjaak has joined
  1025. sjaak has left
  1026. sjaak has joined
  1027. kokonoe has left
  1028. Arc the only reason these companies approach us is because some web developer sent them our way. in literally every case.
  1029. Arc when I get an email from taiwan about working on a smart appliance its because their web devs have already tried and failed. they're hiring a "specialist" because that's what we've all become. and they've already developed the web-side
  1030. Arc the most extreme case you'll get consensus from their inhouse webdevs is to use an existing web standard
  1031. Arc half the products I get to work on are running NodeMCU (ESP8266) and they already tried and failed to run the whole appliance on javascript using web apis.
  1032. Arc ... and that's why a vast majority of IoT is running stupid JSON-based web apis
  1033. Arc and it doesn't even matter because its for a single production run. the company exists only that long. they sell 100k of a product with a $40 margin over cost to manufacture, the 4 million pays the employees and investors, and poof they're gone with no continued support.
  1034. karoshi has left
  1035. Arc the developers working for these companies have a strictly disposible attitude.
  1036. Arc they don't care about standards. the only reason they use standards is to shorten their development cycle. they don't care about license compliance. if we're super lucky they toss their code over the wall on github to bitrot.
  1037. Lance has joined
  1038. pep. Great pitch for all these new students that want to get into programming.
  1039. pep. I would have gone farming right away if I had known
  1040. Arc lol well :-)
  1041. !XSF_Martin has left
  1042. pdurbin has joined
  1043. kokonoe has joined
  1044. mukt2 has left
  1045. mukt2 has joined
  1046. Arc my point is standards are only useful if people use them, we need to make XMPP accessible to web devs because they control the code that goes into products, and they also control who gets funded.
  1047. !XSF_Martin has joined
  1048. intosi has joined
  1049. pdurbin has left
  1050. sjaak has left
  1051. sjaak has joined
  1052. paul has left
  1053. sjaak has left
  1054. sjaak has joined
  1055. intosi has left
  1056. marc_ has joined
  1057. sjaak has left
  1058. sjaak has joined
  1059. sjaak has left
  1060. sjaak has joined
  1061. goffi has left
  1062. !XSF_Martin has left
  1063. !XSF_Martin has joined
  1064. stpeter has left
  1065. mukt2 has left
  1066. mukt2 has joined
  1067. !XSF_Martin has left
  1068. !XSF_Martin has joined
  1069. sjaak has left
  1070. sjaak has joined
  1071. sjaak has left
  1072. sjaak has joined
  1073. mukt2 has left
  1074. mr.fister has left