moparisthebestis members@ missing from https://xmpp.org/community/mailing-lists.html on purpose? there does appear to be public archives anyway https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/
karoshihas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
andyhas left
Neustradamusmoparisthebest: only for members
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
mukt2has joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
davidhas left
Zashhas left
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
davidhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
stpeterhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
mukt2has left
davidhas left
davidhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
stpeterThe members@ archives are public.
Dele (Mobile)has left
Dele (Mobile)has joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
adiaholichas joined
mr.fisterhas left
pdurbinhas left
stpeterhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
Douglas Terabytehas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
Archas left
lskdjfhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Nekithas joined
matlaghas left
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
andyhas joined
ajhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
Yagizahas joined
ajhas left
pdurbinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mimi89999has left
Tobiashas joined
matkorhas left
pdurbinhas left
adiaholichas left
Danielhas left
lovetoxhas joined
Half-Shothas left
rionhas left
Danielhas joined
mimi89999has joined
Danielhas left
wurstsalathas joined
matkorhas joined
lovetoxhas left
Danielhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Danielhas left
emushas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
adiaholichas joined
paulhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
matkorhas left
mimi89999has left
Danielhas joined
Marandahas joined
mimi89999has joined
jonas’pep., agreed, members@ would also work for me
lovetoxhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
pdurbinhas joined
karoshihas joined
Zashhas joined
SeveHello pep. :D
I've been on holidays and also sick, still recovering, I haven't been able to follow what's going on, will try to catch up on the following days after I get better
pdurbinhas left
pep.Seve: ! :)
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
SeveAlso my phone broke, so it is even harder to keep up to date... Sorry about this!
Kevhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
matkorhas joined
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
dwdIf you look very closely this is partly about XMPP: https://www.ncia.nato.int/NewsRoom/Pages/20191106-Connecting-the-Dots-The-High-North.aspx
jonas’of course not mentioning it with a single letter
dwdOf course not. But it says "chat", which is NATO-ese for XMPP.
jonas’:D
jonas’over STANAG? :)
dwdI can't tell. It mentions "wideband high-frequency", which would be STANAG 5066, though NATO are here talking about a common IP bearer, which means no XEP-0365.
pep.XEP-0001 §1 "The XSF's standards process can be outlined informally as follows: [..] 2. [..] and agrees to transfer ownership over the protocol [..]", is "over" a typo here?
pep.Should be "of"?
dwdjonas’, Also "Over STANAG" is like saying "Over RFC". :-)
dwdpep., No, "over" is fine. You can have "ownership over X".
pep.ah ok
pep.Maybe we should mandate Simple English in our specs :)
Ge0rG> released a business opportunity for bidding
that wording is very freaky
GuusIf you look very closely, you can find an XMPP reference on a whiteboard somewhere on these pictures: https://www.act.nato.int/cwix
jonas’dwd, sorry, I’m from a part of the amateur radio community, where STANAG generally refers to some HF thing the NATO uses for communications over radio, which I assume is STANAG 5066. TIL, thanks.
jonas’dwd, sorry, I’m from a part of the amateur radio community where STANAG generally refers to some HF thing the NATO uses for communications over radio, which I assume is STANAG 5066. TIL, thanks.
dwdGe0rG, Well, yes, NATO is terrifyingly bureaucratic. If you've done any government bidding, just imagine bidding for 28 governments simulataneously and you're about right.
dwdjonas’, Ah, I vaguely knew there was some use of S'5066 in ham, but didn't realise it was quite that well known.
Ge0rGdwd: yeah, that comes on top. But "to release a business opportunity" is just weird turbo capitalism speak
dwdGe0rG, Oh, yes. It's a little bubble.
edhelashas left
edhelashas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
pdurbinhas joined
sonnyhas left
mukt2has left
mathijshas left
jonas’dwd, let’s say that was a rather specific corner
mathijshas joined
pdurbinhas left
sonnyhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Wojtekhas joined
mathijshas left
debaclehas joined
sonnyhas left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
sonnyhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mathijshas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
sonnyhas left
Taohas joined
sonnyhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mathijshas left
Taohas left
mathijshas joined
pdurbinhas left
intosihas left
ralphmhas left
intosihas joined
ralphmhas joined
dwdhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
matkorhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mukt2has left
dwdhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has joined
Wojtekhas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Wojtekhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Taohas joined
Taohas left
Archas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Taohas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Taohas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
mukt2has joined
goffihas left
pdurbinhas joined
paulhas left
winfriedhas left
paulhas joined
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
Taohas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
pdurbinhas left
Taohas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
mukt2has joined
stpeterhas joined
sonnyhas left
Taohas joined
stpeterhas left
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
matlaghas joined
GuusWould it hurt to have some content served on the URLs that match the namespaces that are defined in our registrar, where applicable? I think I've just received a request to remove namespaces from Openfire, since the links are broken anyway. I'd prefer to not have the discussion that I'm going to have more often, in the future.
Danielhas left
Taohas left
Danielhas joined
GuusI'm wondering if any content that's being served without a HTTP error that's not a schema will break / confuse tooling.
stpeterhas joined
Taohas joined
mathijshas left
pep.The discussion? That is "Please inform yourself about what a namespace is"?
Ge0rGGuus: that sounds like another request to fix our registry
pep.It's not about the registry from what I understand
pep.It's about people not knowing that a namespace doesn't have to resolve
pep.right(?)
GuusYes.
GuusBasically: can we have non-error content at URLs like https://www.jabber.org/protocol/geoloc
Daniel14 year old me was slightly confused about the urls not resolving as well. But I don't think that making the urls resolve would have helped my understanding
DanielIf anything it would have made it more confusing maybe
GuusNo, but it prevents me having awkward conversations with customers.
KevI suspect that them not resolving actually helps rather than hinders, in this case.
KevBecause it forces understanding, rather than ploughing ahead on a basis of being ignorant about one's ignorance :)
Guusmaybe a redirect to https://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html ?
mukt2has left
Daniel> Because it forces understanding, rather than ploughing ahead on a basis of being ignorant about one's ignorance :)
👍
KevGuus: A redirect to namespaces might not be daft, though, yeah.
flowGuus, I'd love to see namespaces of XEPs being URLs that point to the related version of the xep
Kevflow: I see the appeal in that. I'm worried it would add confusion (see ignorant ignorance comment) from those not 'in the know'. But I'm certainly not high-F against the idea.
sonnyhas joined
MattJI'm pretty sure they used to redirect (a very long time ago)
GuusI'm not disagreeing with you all here - and there's something to be said for it, but I really don't want to fight this battle with everyone 🙂
Taohas left
GuusI'm looking for a path of least resistance here 🙂
!XSF_Martinhas joined
Guusread: "Guus is chickening out"
Guus"everyone" being the one customer that comes up with this in the past 5 years or so
Guus(but for everyone that asks a question, 10 others wonder, but don't bother to ask)
flowKev, I do not follow the "ignorant ignorance" comment. Could you rephrase it for me? I don't see how namespace values pointing to the document declaring and defining that protocol used by those values can be anything but a big win
Kevflow: If the URL doesn't point anywhere, people are forced to understand that the URL doesn't mean what people think it does. OTOH if we put URLs there for the http-based namespaces, are we going to have people thinking that they can shove the URL to random web pages in there? What about urn:xmpp stuff?
KevI don't feel strongly about it, but I suspect anything we do will lead to confusion by someone.
pep.Guus, also note that this happens only for namespaces that happen to be http.
Guuspep. I am painfully, painfully aware...
pep.And hmm, the XSF has an http -> https redirection in place right
flowKev, I see, thanks
dwdpep., See XEP-0419 §3.1 : https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0419.html#sect-idm46603442987040
pep.contxt?
pep.context?
HolgerWon't the uninformed think "oh the URL has died? (no wonder, Jabber is dying)" rather than "oh it points nowhere, must be just a namespace"?
pep.ah, 419.
GuusContext is: Ge0rG and dwd having fun.
KevHolger: Also possible.
pep.dwd, yeah not what I'm saying.
pep.Just saying confused customer gonna be confused
GuusStill, serving a redirect to the registrar wouldn't be the worst idea?
pep.The XSF doesn't have control over jabber.org though
Guusit'd also have the benefit of what Flow proposes, although indirectly: a reference to the corresponding XEPs.
Guus(without the downside that the URLs are added to documentation as Kev suggested, as they'd point to a generic landing page)
Guuspep. I'm pretty sure we can approach the friendly sysops for jabber.org to make this change, if we want it.
KevI think Guus's suggestion is sound. The XSF doesn't have control over jabber.org, but this seems like something Peter isn't going to say 'no' to.
pep.Guus, You mean just like we approached them to update their servers a while ago? :p
KevI suspect, anyway. I've been somewhat sidelined from recent jabber.org decisions.
Guuspep. that's not helpful.
pep.It is what it is
Guusno-one here is very much opposed to this then?
goffihas joined
KevI'm not.
pep.I won't oppose that for sure. Not really in favor either
Guusgood enough for me 🙂
GuusI'll poke some of the volunteers at jabber.org.
mukt2has joined
sonnyhas left
adiaholichas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
sonnyhas joined
stpeterhas left
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has left
mathijshas joined
mukt2has joined
pep.https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/ipr-policy.html I just realized there are two §3.3
edhelasa glitch in the Matrix ?
Wojtekhas left
pep.(pushed a fix)
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
intosiThe redirect is in place.
remkohas joined
pdurbinhas joined
stpeterhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
pdurbinhas left
calvinhas joined
stpeterhas left
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
stpeterhas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
GuusThanks intosi !
Shellhas left
lovetoxhas joined
jjrhSo NATO uses xmpp for their chat?
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
emushas left
Kevhttps://xmpp.org/about/faq.html says so :)
lorddavidiiihas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
KevFor tactical chat, anyway, which doesn't imply all chat.
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
sezuanhas left
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
sezuanhas joined
mukt2> For tactical chat, anyway, which doesn't imply all chat.
What could be the reason for using it in tactical chat?
sezuanhas left
jjrhThat's pretty nifty, I knew there was a chat product targeted at the military, but didn't realize it was a NATO thing.
KevFederation, open standards, good story for security labeling/rbac, constrained bandwidth.
lovetoxmukt2, they probably didnt select XMPP
lovetoxthey have a contractor who offers a piece of software that does what NATO specified
lovetoxand this contractor uses XMPP
Kevlovetox: That is not the case :)
jjrhIs there a source/reference to this claim? (not disputing it, only curious to know more)
lovetoxno? NATO has an IT dep that writes all the software themself? doubt it
jonas’lovetox, there’s a wide range of options between that
jonas’they could for example have made a survey of open chat standards and made a bidding for a contractor which can deliver that
lovetoxnot really, either you write it yourself, or you write user requirements and let it write someone else
jonas’XMPP could’ve been part of the requirements
lovetoxyeah, fair could be
Kevjonas’: (And is)
lovetoxthen the answer is obvious, probably because it is open and a standard
lovetoxand is there really an alternative?
dwdThe last NATO bid I was part of was explicitly requiring XMPP, since that was an existing deployed and federated standard.
!XSF_Martinhas joined
KevBut as I mentioned above, XMPP has more going for it for that community than *just* being an open standard. It's an open standard that has desirable properties.
dwdThat was a looong time ago, but nothing's changed since.
dwdjjrh, FWIW, it's awkward because it's very difficult to know what *can* be discussed openly (some of it certainly is classified) and what people *want* to be discussed openly, which is somewhat different. Often organisations like NATO default to assuming everything is not to be discussed.
dwdjjrh, But if you search for "NATO XMPP" on a popular search engine of your choice, you'll very likely find things, and the Google search suggestions might even give you pointers...
jonas’> isode.com
jonas’I’m not surprised ;)
KevThat is a place you might end up.
jonas’that’s the first two hits, then it’s xmpp.org
mukt2has left
dwdHonestly, the Google search suggestions is the bigger hint.
jonas’github doesn’t show me the PR this belonged t
jonas’github doesn’t show me the PR this belonged to
pep.I'm not especially proud of NATO using XMPP fwiw, but I'll leave it at that
Kevjonas’: "W. Martin Borgert" it says doesn't it?
jonas’that doesn’t tell me which PR number this was
MattJIt usually does :/
jjrhproud isn't the right word, but it's a useful selling point to give people when they ask who's using XMPP.
jonas’jjrh, depending who you’re talking to, really
Kevjonas’: Sorry, misunderstood the point you were making.
jonas’Kev, I recall that there was a brief discussion in the PR, and I wanted to link it
jonas’but I can’t find it
jonas’sometimes I hate github
Guus"military grade" typically implies "of good quality".
jjrhjonas’, of course, /some/ people. but regardless of how you feel about NATO/military it does imply a certain amount of robustness and flexibility
jonas’jjrh, people are ready to ignore the implications in face of that
jonas’Guus, to be honest, nowadays, military grade mainly implies marketing to me when it’s about IM
jjrhjonas’, those people probably already got sold when you told them it's a IETF standard :)
jonas’"military grad encryption!!!k"
Daniel> proud isn't the right word, but it's a useful selling point to give people when they ask who's using XMPP.
It's not just nato. It's also other government agencies. Lots of people 'who have something to hide'. But those people are never very chatty about that
j.rhas left
mukt2has joined
j.rhas joined
Kevjonas’: As far as I can see, there was no PR here.
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Guusjonas’ I can understand that if you read about something being advertised as 'military grade' without knowing if it's actually being used by the military. Apparently, for XMPP, it's the other way around.
sonnyhas left
jonas’Kev, I recall discussion on github, it must’ve been somewhere
KevGithub might simply be lying to me.
mukt2has left
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has joined
moparisthebestXMPP can use AES, and we all know AES is "military grade" :)
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
emushas joined
mukt2> All the stuff I'm finding using slightly more informed keywords is coming up behind walls, unfortunately.
> So I'm not finding useful breadcrumbs either.
Maybe something open source must be written on the subject.
lovetoxhas left
dwdMost of it is fairly dry, like: https://aplits.disa.mil/docs/UC-XMPP2013C1.pdf
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
krauqhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
krauqhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
sonnyhas left
pdurbinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
emushas left
remkohas left
remkohas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
lovetoxhas left
sonnyhas joined
remkohas left
adiaholichas left
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
stpeterhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
matlaghas left
emushas joined
remkohas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Yagizahas left
Danielhas left
sonnyhas left
Danielhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
sonnyhas joined
Nekithas left
dwdI know that there aren't many Windows users here, but there's a serious vulnerability in ECC in all versions of Windows, so make sure you're up on that.
moparisthebestyep https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/849224/ for more context
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
paulhas left
edhelashttps://nl.movim.eu/?about#statistics_tab Gajim is quite high actually !
ZashECC bad. AES good. Something something :)
moparisthebestyou mean RSA but yea probably :)
ZashRef to the earlier "military grade" message ;)
!XSF_Martinhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Shellhas joined
mukt2has left
pdurbinhas left
Wojtekhas joined
mukt2has joined
Martinhas joined
MartinIs it just me or does no link in the xmpp.org header work without allowing scripts from ajax.googleapis.com?
andrey.ghas left
rionhas joined
mukt2has left
delehas joined
jonas’it’s just you
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
sonnyhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
debaclehas left
delehas left
sonnyhas joined
goffihas left
Martin;-(
MartinOh, now it works.
mukt2has joined
Nekithas joined
sonnyhas left
debaclehas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
mukt2has left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
marchas left
mr.fisterhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
sonnyhas joined
andrey.ghas joined
andrey.ghas left
stpeterhas joined
andrey.ghas joined
mr.fisterhas left
!XSF_Martinhas left
pdurbinhas joined
marchas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
mukt2has joined
sonnyhas left
Tobiashas left
Wojtekhas left
pdurbinhas left
emushas left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
emushas joined
Vaulorhas left
Nekithas left
remkohas left
remkohas joined
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
paulhas joined
calvinhas left
remkohas left
tomhas joined
tomHello,
taohas joined
tomWhy does it say XEP-0363 is still lastcall?
tomhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0363.html
taohas left
tomWhat is the status of XEP-0363 currently?
jonas’tom, the status is that I need to re-issue the LC
jonas’thanks for reminding me
tomOk
tomThank you
tomBut just to be clear, it's still not considered 'stable' yet or is at the last stage until stable?
jonas’please check the roadmap on the top right
jonas’LC is the stage before Draft
jonas’it is probably only not-draft for formal reasons and those should be resolved within the next month or so
XSF Discussion - 2020-01-14