dwd:
> For what it's worth, there are plenty of Open Source developers who
> haven't bullied the XSF or tried to reinterpret its documents and
> practice to claim it allows them to do whatever they want.
now that's a little childish isn't it? and after our discussion here where I clarified I was after none of these things. I'm not going to derail the email thread and I'll be happy to just forget about it, just please realize we are on the same team here, I honestly just wanted some things clarified, if discussion is in any way harmful to any type of open standards organization then it's in bad shape
lorddavidiiihas left
Danielhas left
stpeterhas joined
Danielhas joined
sonnyhas left
Danielhas left
stpeterhas left
serge90has left
serge90has joined
pdurbinhas joined
paulhas left
andrey.ghas left
stpeterhas joined
pdurbinhas left
mukt2has left
sonnyhas joined
archas left
archas joined
mukt2has joined
Danielhas joined
Shellhas joined
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
calvinhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
waqashas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
Danielhas left
karoshihas left
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
mukt2has left
archas left
archas joined
Danielhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
j.rhas left
Yagizahas joined
pdurbinhas left
j.rhas joined
stpeterhas left
waqashas left
calvinhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Nekithas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
andyhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Danielhas left
sonnyhas left
Danielhas joined
krauqhas left
Danielhas left
krauqhas joined
andrey.ghas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has joined
Tobiashas joined
mukt2has left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
Danielhas joined
archas left
archas joined
Danielhas left
sonnyhas left
Danielhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
wurstsalathas joined
Danielhas left
archas left
Danielhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
emushas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
pdurbinhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Danielhas left
matkorhas joined
Danielhas joined
karoshihas joined
matkorhas left
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
paulhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Danielhas left
zachhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
genofirehas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
genofirehas joined
larmahas left
Danielhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
lskdjfhas joined
larmahas joined
remkohas joined
Danielhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
matkorhas joined
Danielhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
mimi89999has left
genofirehas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mimi89999has joined
genofirehas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
goffihas joined
dwd
You don't want things simply clarified, you want them significantly changed - this is evident from your actions and messages. You'rve consistently argued that any kind of encumbrance is acceptable to you and therefore should be allowed by the XSF, and argued that the documents describing our process either allow this already or should be changed to allow it. I don't really see how this is mischaracterising anything.
Shellhas left
pep.
dwd: seems to me you're also in the business of telling people what they think (that you criticized yesterday in this channel). Maybe we can all put an end to the pettiness
pdurbinhas joined
sonnyhas joined
zachhas left
dwd
pep., If you'd like to explain why you think I'm wrong, please do so.
zachhas joined
pep.
I don't actually care if you're right or wrong here
dwd
Of course not.
pep.
that's not how we keep the dialogue going
pep.
and yes I disagree with your statement fwiw
dwd
pep., I've done my level best to explain why radical changes to the XSF will damage it. I have, nevertheless, provided a proposal to compromise on this to a significant degree. The reaction has been to continue pushing to reinterpret existing rules and change them.
dwd
For example:
[18:30:14] moparisthebest: as I stated before, GPL is not an encumbrance in my book
pdurbinhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
pep.
dwd: so what, GPL is also not an encumbrance in my book. That's why we're asking for that to be rephrased, explained differently maybe
jonas’
dwd, I don’t see a problem with that statement
jonas’
that’s not asking to change anything
jonas’
that’s just explaining their viewpoint
jonas’
nothing wrong with that.
flow
Out of curiosity and to determine how much effort to put into this, I'd really like to see a member opinion vote on that. Of course, the question is what 'that' should be. Maybe "Should a XEP requiring GPL-compatible licenses be disallowed to enter the experimental stage (Yes / No)"
dwd
jonas’, Encumbrance has a legal definition that's really quite easy to find, as these things go.
jonas’
dwd, for someone who has no problems with GPL, it’s still not an encumbrance maybe?
jonas’
I’m not a native speaker, but you and moparisthebest are, I think
jonas’
(though from different locales methings)
dwd
jonas’, For someone with an astonishing amount of money, high patent licensing would not be an onerous encumbrance, but it would still be an encumbrance.
dwd
jonas’, I'm happy to clarify these things, of course, but they have a defined meaning.
dwd
flow, I would still argue that allowing encumbered specifications (by the usual and legally-accepted definition of encumbrance) onto the Standards Track is dangerous, and I will resist that heavily.
jonas’
dwd, which is fair and good, I think
jonas’
but I also think you’re putting words on the "Goldwaage" (as we say in germany) here, meaning that you’re being overly precise about interpreting other people’s statements and not giving them any leeway (which, I think, would be appropriate given the medium and intensity of discussion)
zachhas left
zachhas joined
dwd
jonas’, I have to assume that what people are arguing for is that the GPL is an *acceptable* encumbrance. That is an opinion, and while I disagree, I accept it's not a right or wrong thing in any absolute terms. But the fact that the GPL requires particular licensing on derived works, for example, is factual, and the fact that also counts as an encumbrance in the usual meaning of that term isn't contraversial in the slightest.
zachhas left
zachhas joined
sonnyhas left
jonas’
dwd, I see. The viewpoint makes sense.
jonas’
I’m just worried about the level of hostility on both sides in this discussion.
Daniel
yeah i think the omemo debate has brought up some underlying friction that has been there for a while. plus classic bike shedding
i mean as far as omemo is concerned this debate could have been already over. The OMEMO Team(tm) has already announced that they are planning on working on a second iteration that is gpl free and fixes many other problems with the spec (for omemo, gpl is only one of multiple issues)
sonnyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
dwd
Daniel, I'm trying, probably unsuccessfully, to seperate OMEMO from the general case, and seperate any technical issues in OMEMO from its licensing. I have no stake in the technical issues; work-wise we can't use any PFS/PCS solution, so MLS is equally out. Obviously I like to have high-quality XSF specs, but I have no personal/work aims here.
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
dwd
(Our end-users do want E2EE; they also want nothing held on the device and a search function. You can imagine my fun.)
winfried
dwd: may I quote that one?
dwd
winfried, Not publicly please.
dwd
I actually have a candidate solution, but it's horrendous.
remkohas left
remkohas joined
winfried
dwd: OK, Was already including it in my e2e encryption presentation at fosdem, scrapping it again :-D
dwd
winfried, Without attribution and company name is fine.
winfried
dwd: (y)
ralphm
Good thing this room is not archived publicly. 😜
jonas’
dwd, you are aware that this room is publicly logged?
dwd
Yes, of course, but putting it in a presentation is rather different.
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
dwd
winfried, Also a user-story I put on Twitter to explain things to a well-meaning Doctor: https://twitter.com/DwdDave/status/1204395566442135553 - you can use that.
winfried
dwd thanks
winfried
Daniel: for my information / knowledge, do you have a list of issues with the OMEMO spec? I love to have a better overview...
winfried
dwd: > work-wise we can't use any PFS/PCS solution
I don't understand this comment, can you explain it?
dwd
"Perfect Forward Secrecy" and "Post Compromise Security", which are very similar concepts. I think PCS is a little weaker, but honestly I'm not sure of the details beyond "ephemeral keying".
winfried
And what do you mean with 'work-wise'? I believe my biggest lack of understanding is there...
Guus
Daniel the fact that OMEMO is already being replaced, as you write, fits right in XSF-defined procedures on how to handle contention like the one we're in now, I think. I just mentioned something along the same lines in a reply to the mailinglist. If we take that out of scope: what issue remains? What are the core issues that we're really discussing here?
pep.
winfried, https://github.com/Syndace/xeps/projects/1 that was a list Syndace pasted here
pep.
There are probably more
dwd
winfried, Oh. As in, for my work. Pando cannot use ephemeral keying because we cannot store data on the device and need a secure audit trail.
winfried
dwd: clear.. I thought the 'we' referred to the XSF....
Guus
I think it was useful to separate the two discussions currently going on in the mailinglists, btw. Thanks for that.
remkohas left
Zash
We need the Hats XEP! :)
winfried
pep.: thanks, gives a clear picture already
dwd
Guus, There's at least three things to consider: Experimental, [Non-]Open Standards, and OMEMO itself. I'm hoping that by dealing with the first two the last just happens.
Guus
I'm thinking Experimental is at best only sideways-related to the rest - or am I missing something?
Kev
Guus: Experimental is (currently) the entry point, so it's definitely related.
dwd
Guus, Yes, I agree with Kev, these are all interrelated.
Guus
I ment 'side-ways' in the sense that discussing 'experimental' primarily affects _when_ checks against XSF principles/objectives are made - not what those principles/objectives are?
dwd
Yes, that's true.
Guus
Meaning that any discussion on experimental should not affect the eventual outcome of a progression of a XEP through the stages.
Guus
we could optimize that flow, making sure that things that we don't want are out earlier, while the barrier to add new things is lower.
Guus
And those would be all good improvements.
dwd
Modulo that, as stated, I will resist anything going onto (opr staying on) the Standards Track if it doesn't conform to our IPR policy.
Guus
I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you, in my last email.✎
Guus
I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you did earlier, in my last email. ✏
sonnyhas left
remkohas joined
Nekithas left
dwd
I think that's roughly in line with my original stance, which I have tried to compromise on.
Nekithas joined
Guus
As I wrote: I appreciate you trying to find a compromise - but I think this one will hurt us more than benefit, in the long run
Guus
On an unrelated note: today is the last day that the Thon EU hotel offer is valid. If you want to make us of it, act now!
!XSF_Martinhas joined
remkohas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
Guus
> Well, yes, but the majority of our end-users are probably Fortnite players, and they're not talking to us.
My kid gave up 30 seconds into me trying to explain IPR.
larmahas left
larmahas joined
dwd
I probably should have expanded on that. But "consumer-grade" instant messaging is pretty small beans for XMPP. Embedded use of XMPP into games is, I think, the largest use by numbers of users, and I'm not sure what would be next - probably military, though possibly financial trading.
dwd
That doesn't mean I don't think consumer-grade messaging isn't important, or that we should ignore enterprise messaging (ie, Slack) because we're barely present. Strategically, both those make more sense to concentrate on than gaming (and won't harm gaming either), at least in terms of features.
Guus
(no argument from me)
debaclehas joined
dwd
Shit me. "That doesn't mean I don't think [...] isn't important". I'm turning into Kev. Sorry.
!XSF_Martinhas left
Guus
You're only realizing this now? 😃
dwd
Guus, I wasn't unaware of it.
Guus
that's my boy
Guus
Unrelated: you've disappeared from my roster again.
Guus
ah, no
Guus
sorry
Guus
my client is acting up
lorddavidiiihas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Guus
dwd I'm trying to push a subscription request your way
lorddavidiiihas left
mathijshas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mathijshas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
remkohas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Wojtekhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
remkohas left
Kev
dwd: On the contrary, I get the right number of negatives into my incomprehensible mess :p
eevvoorhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
dwd
Kev, I never said I didn't disagree.
pdurbinhas joined
jonas’
I propose a member vote: any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs 2^n EUR, where n = number of negations in that sentence. To be paid to all non-native english speakers.✎
jonas’
I propose a member vote: any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs 2^n EUR, where n = number of negations in that sentence. To be paid to all non-native english speakers in the XSF. ✏
jonas’
(each)
Kev
So that first sentence of you costs 4 EUR to each non-native speaker?
jonas’
Kev, huh, where is the second negation there?
jonas’
aaaah
jonas’
s/any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs/any negation beyond the first in a sentence costs/
jonas’
better?
Kev
'any negation' = 1, 'number of negations' = 2 :)
jonas’
I’m gonna leave now
Guus
I'm gonna sit here, be quiet, and become rich.
pdurbinhas left
dwd
Guus, You're Dutch, you count as a native speaker. :-)
Guus
Will me exclaiming "no no no!" count against jonas’ rule?
Kev
I couldn't possibly count it out.
pdurbinhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
pdurbinhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
ralphm
dwd: oops, in that case I've been lying quite a bit
APachhas left
APachhas joined
remkohas left
dwd
ralphm, Ik ben het daar niet mee oneens.
ralphm
dwd: :-D
emushas left
emushas joined
Guus
Jonas never limited it to any specific language. I'm guessing the first round at the hotel bar is on you. 🙂
zachhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
zachhas joined
sonnyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
stpeterhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
emushas left
MattJ
dwd, just tried a different email address for the Eurostar website, same error
MattJ
The only other thing it has is my phone number, I could try my landline
MattJ
or it just hates my name
mukt2has joined
!XSF_Martin
Is your last name Null?
dwd
"What do you mean, your surname is just 'J'?"
MattJ
Oh my, I did it
Guus
Who did you bribe?
stpeter
Huzzah!
MattJ
Different browser, incognito mode, paypal and my "other" email address... winning combo I'll have to remember for next year
emushas joined
dwd
Same train as me?
MattJ
15:04?
dwd
Cheap afternoon one? Sounds right.
MattJ
Yep
dwd
Last train back on Sunday?
MattJ
No, coming back on Monday
MattJ
Otherwise getting home that late is too difficult
waqashas joined
MattJ
and crossing the border might take the whole day, etc.
!XSF_Martin
Isn't it still EU?
Daniel
oh; i had forgotten about that
intosi
Lovely timing.
dwd
Daniel, Yeah, I haven't.
MattJ
Great timing indeed
Zash
!XSF_Martin: Doesn't matter, it's Shengen that you can thank for painless border crossing and the UK was never part of that
Daniel
i mean not about brexit in general. but the fact that it is - this time for real - happening right during fosdem
dwd
MattJ, Right, I figured I could use travel insurance if needs be. Or get my son to fly into Belgium under the radar in the dead of night.
intosi
dwd: the latter sounds ideal.
!XSF_Martin
> !XSF_Martin: Doesn't matter, it's Shengen that you can thank for painless border crossing and the UK was never part of that
Yeah, that's right. I think Switzerland and UK are the both exceptions of schengen == EU.
intosi
Switzerland != EU.
MattJ
dwd, pilot licence valid in the EU?
dwd
Daniel, It has been on my mind since that particular date was announced, and is also part of the reason Kev isn't coming at all.
lorddavidiiihas left
!XSF_Martin
> Switzerland != EU.
But Switzerland is Schengen.
intosi
TIL
dwd
MattJ, Yes, he has an EASA-issued license, so he's fine. He could transition it to a CAA one after Brexit, but there's no point.
dwd
!XSF_Martin, Ireland isn't Schengen either, and I believe there are other countries.
intosi
I suspect flying under the radar might put his license at risk, though.
Zash
dwd: paradrop?
intosi
Although, if he isn't caught doing so...
dwd
intosi, Only in the EU. ;-)
lorddavidiiihas joined
dwd
intosi, Flying in the dead of night is probably worse for his license, actually, given he doesn't have night qual.
!XSF_Martin
> !XSF_Martin, Ireland isn't Schengen either, and I believe there are other countries.
Really? Afaik it was Schengen. I travelled to Switzerland without any control.
!XSF_Martin
Wikipedia says it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
dwd
!XSF_Martin, No, Ireland is in the CTA with the UK, which is one of the precursors along with Benelux.
Guus
> Or get my son to fly into Belgium under the radar in the dead of night.
Isn't that basically an invasion at that point?
!XSF_Martin
Ah, thought your talking about Switzerland. Sorry.
lorddavidiiihas left
Guus
I'll be there on Wednesday too.
dwd
Guus, Well, yes, but only of Blegium so that doesn't count. Everyone invades Belgium.
Guus
true.
lorddavidiiihas joined
moparisthebest
dwd, matter of perspective I guess, from your perspective I'm trying to radically change things, from my perspective I already thought they were that way, hence the asking for clarification etc, I don't think this is in any way unreasonable
moparisthebest
clearly XEP-0001 fails at being clear enough on critical definitions like "open standard"
moparisthebest
so that should be fixed and let's move on
mukt2has left
pdurbinhas joined
matkorhas left
mukt2has joined
remkohas joined
pdurbinhas left
emushas left
zachhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
zachhas joined
ralphm
As I've pointed out before, XEP-0001 doesn't exist in a vacuum, and our definition of open standard *is* clearly defined in our IPR Policy.
moparisthebest
only in your mind
moparisthebest
it's not clear to me at least, for instance
pep.
it's also not clear to me.
Kev
It could be it's clear to the people who've been involved in the XSF for 15 years and less so for the newcomers.✎
Kev
It could be it's clear to the people who've been involved in the XSF for 15+ years and less so for the newcomers. ✏
moparisthebest
no, it should be crystal clear to the newcomers, or even anyone reading XEP-0001, or it has failed at it's task
Kev
I think you misread what I said.
moparisthebest
yes I did, I'll agree with that one :)
emushas joined
jonas’
to be honest, I never cared much about what exactly constitutes an open standard, but I agree that we need a clear definition if we want to make decisions based on this term
remkohas left
moparisthebest
exactly jonas’ , I never really thought too hard about it either until just recently
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
ralphm
The discussion has mostly focussed on OMEMO being based on the Signal Protocol, implies that the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL. I see this as a 'restriction', as per the IPR Policy, and this is why I believe that means it is encumbered. I hear people find this to be unclear, and I'd like to understand why.
stpeterhas left
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
emushas left
moparisthebest
as I've stated, I don't find the GPL to be an encumbrance, additionally "the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL" is a legal opinion that I think the XSF has no business making, lastly I would personally clearly count GPL as an "open standard" and since there is no definition in XEP-0001...
moparisthebest
that's kind of why I tried to seperate the conversations, if we don't make legal opinions, then we don't have to worry about the GPL stuff at all
moparisthebest
if we do make legal opinions, then we need to edit XEP-0001 to clarify a ton of stuff
jonas’
you are right about the legal opinion on "the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL"
moparisthebest
and decide what to do about GPL
jonas’
we’re not qualified for htat
jonas’
what we ARE qualified for is to detect a situation where forming such a legal opinion is very much required in the first place
jonas’
which is an encumberance
jonas’
all on its own
ralphm
this
jonas’
if you need DEFINITELY need a legal opinion to figure out if you can implement something under free software license X, then it’s encumbered, period.
moparisthebest
you have to form a legal opinion anytime you implement anything
jonas’
that’s a restriction and something very scary to legal departments
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
moparisthebest
and of course I'd have no problem at all with some disclaimer saying what we think might be possible encumbrances (is that a word?)
ralphm
moparisthebest, I am not asking you whether you think a specification requiring the end result to be GPL is an open standard. I'm asking if you can see that this requirement can be considered as a limitation as per the *XSF's* definition.
moparisthebest
the XSF doesn't have a clear enough definition for me to decide
moparisthebest
"open standard" appears 1 time in XEP-0001, and no times in the IPR policy, and no definitions anywhere
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
adiaholichas left
Ge0rG
is this the third or the fourth round we are doing here?
Guus
From the IPR:
> owever, the XSF must ensure that XMPP Extensions do not pollute the free and open nature of the protocols. Preventing such pollution means that in perpetuity any entity may independently, and without payment or hindrance, create, use, sell, distribute, or dispose of implementations of XMPP and of any XMPP Extension. Such is the intent of this policy.
To me, that leaves little room for interpretation of this. Having a protocol that requires an implementation to be of any type of license that for whatever reason someone would be unwilling to comply to, breaks with the above.✎
Guus
From the IPR:
> However, the XSF must ensure that XMPP Extensions do not pollute the free and open nature of the protocols. Preventing such pollution means that in perpetuity any entity may independently, and without payment or hindrance, create, use, sell, distribute, or dispose of implementations of XMPP and of any XMPP Extension. Such is the intent of this policy.
To me, that leaves little room for interpretation of this. Having a protocol that requires an implementation to be of any type of license that for whatever reason someone would be unwilling to comply to, breaks with the above. ✏
emushas joined
jonas’
Ge0rG, sixth, methinks
Guus
Ge0rG I'm thinking we're in the double-digits.
moparisthebest
Ge0rG, isn't it just one long discussion?
jonas’
moparisthebest, a long discussion would move beyond re-iterating the same points each and every day
ralphm
moparisthebest, do you understand the piece that Guus copied from the IPR Policy?
stpeterhas joined
Ge0rG
what jonas said
Ge0rG
oh god this train wifi at 200km/h is lagging
moparisthebest
I don't think we are, I'm being accused of trying to do things that I am not trying to do, and attempting to make that clear
Ge0rG
and poezio is re-connecting all the time. Sigh
moparisthebest
I mean yesterday dwd accused me of "bullying the XSF into my interpretation [sic]" and I'm clarifying that's not my intent
dwd
In fairness, I was quoting Daniel there.
Daniel
moparisthebest: fwiw I don't think he did. And I was the one who brought up the term
Daniel
And I wasn't referring to you
moparisthebest
yep that's fair, I'm not personally insulted, it's just clear my intent has not came across how I had planned
Guus
What do we need to resolve this?
Kev
A deep breath. (first)
jonas’
on all parties, please
Daniel
Actually I was partially referring to myself and/or myself from a couple of years ago when we first had the omemo debate
Kev
jonas’: You would like me to breathe on all parties? I could try speaking Welsh at people, although that would be more spittle than breath.
Guus
I'll see Kev's Welsh and raise him with my Dutch.
jonas’
Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today!✎
jonas’
Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today! (in a good way) ✏
calvinhas joined
moparisthebest
that statement from the IPR policy is clear, but XEP-0001 doesn't make it clear that that is the particular definition of "open standard" we are using
Kev
jonas’: Someone once made the (insightful) observation that the reason I don't enjoy speaking Welsh is that I'm not fluent enough to be able to play silly games with it in the way I do with English.
moparisthebest
some type of update to XEP-0001 with some clarification would be good
Kev
When I said a deep breath, though, that bit wasn't flippant. I think the best thing we could do would be to step back for a few days (I think everyone's position is now clear).
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: that we probably all can agree on
jonas’
Kev, that seems realistic
Ge0rG
maybe we can just call out the weekend, then?
moparisthebest
and then the next step is to continue trying to figure out how we can document things that *currently* have IPR concerns but might be fixed later
Kev
I think that then, once we have an obvious break from the current discussion, in which some tensions have run somewhat high, one of the people who's been around a while attempts to add a clarification to XEP1 - hopefully one that doesn't involve adding too much prose.
Kev
And then the people who've found it confusing can comment on whether it helps as a clarification or not
Ge0rG
Kev: yes, it should be done by somebody who doesn't involve too much prose.
moparisthebest
that sounds perfect Kev
Kev
(And if we get to the stage that our status quo is documented reasonable, we decide that the status quo should be changed, I think that is the time to consider it)✎
Kev
(And if we get to the stage that our status quo is documented reasonably, we decide that the status quo should be changed, I think that is the time to consider it) ✏
!XSF_Martinhas left
Kev
I think I've probably been around for long enough to have a reasonable first stab at a PR or two, so I propose that, as recompense for missing the Summit, I will submit something in a couple of weeks, assuming we can manage the first part of calming the flames in the interim :)
Kev
And I would try very hard not to write too much prose, at least in part because I very much don't enjoy writing such things.
Guus
(in my experience, writing less prose is more work)
Kev
Guus: y
Guus
I have no issue with that approach. Seems sensible to me. Thanks.
emushas left
moparisthebest
sounds great, so not sure how to "officially retract my PR" while waiting for Kev 's but you can at least unofficially consider it done
zachhas left
emushas joined
zachhas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
moparisthebest
and I'll just re-iterate once more before shutting up, no hard feelings from my end, I didn't mean to cause any for anyone else, and I really appreciate the discussion I think it's been productive
Kev
moparisthebest: Thanks. If you'd like me to, I could close that request with the comment you've just given. Resubmitting wouldn't be onerous i fyou later wanted to.
Kev
Using my almost-the-laziest-Editor-we've-got superpowers.
stpeterhas left
moparisthebest
ah it's unlocked now, I can do it!
Kev
👍
remkohas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
mukt2has left
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
waqashas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
waqashas joined
stpeterhas joined
remkohas left
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
ralphm
Kev: if I take this task, will that free you up to come to the summit?
lovetoxhas left
Kev
Hah. Sadly not.
ralphm
Hey, I tried.
ralphm
It is kinda unconfortable to not have a Kev there.✎
ralphm
It is kinda uncomfortable to not have a Kev there. ✏
adiaholichas joined
genofirehas left
Kev
I'm sure Diegem will somehow cope with the great double-negatives drought of 2020.
genofirehas joined
remkohas joined
dwd
I don't think I'm not the only one who won't say I'm not disappointed.
ralphm
Is dwd not coming either?
ralphm
Nor intosi?
pep.
I vote for jonas’' idea of negation jar.
j.rhas left
Kev
dwd's going, I believe.
intosi
I'm going as well.
dwd
ralphm, I'll come. Double negatives I can do, but Kev has cornered the market in the triple.
ralphm
I do not intend to not attent.
intosi
I can't promise I won't try avoiding not sneaking in a few n-negatives.
lovetoxhas joined
adiaholichas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has joined
emushas left
mimi89999has left
Dele (Mobile)has left
adiaholichas joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
lovetoxhas left
emushas joined
lovetoxhas joined
eevvoorhas left
mukt2has left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
sonnyhas left
j.rhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas left
Ge0rG
jonas’: the Jan 2nd votes are all tagged as EXPIRED in the spreadsheet of doom
jonas’
that’s correct
jonas’
because they weren’t complete
jonas’
I need to trigger editor actions
Ge0rG
but even in incomplete state, I think they all look like decided, right?
jonas’
yeah, I didn’t code it
Ge0rG
right
Ge0rG
not trying to blame you, I just wondered
Ge0rG
(also reading up on the MAMFC thread, slowly)
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mukt2has left
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
matkorhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
lovetoxhas left
dwd
Yeah, I never got beyond "expired", and I actually wanted to highlight them even though they might be decisive.
sonnyhas left
mimi89999has joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
adiaholichas left
mukt2has joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas joined
lovetoxhas joined
serge90has left
serge90has joined
ajhas joined
calvinhas left
Shellhas joined
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
remkohas left
remkohas joined
j.rhas left
ajhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
waqashas left
adiaholichas joined
stpeterhas left
rionhas left
rionhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
j.rhas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
remkohas left
stpeterhas joined
remkohas joined
j.rhas left
lovetoxhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
andrey.ghas left
Nekithas left
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
debaclehas left
j.rhas joined
mukt2has left
stpeterhas left
andrey.ghas joined
Daniel
Has anyone ever done / thought about something like BOSH for s2s?
zachhas left
zachhas joined
marc
What is the use case?
moparisthebest
before you go too far down that rabbit hole, the RFC is still under way, but likely soon there will be a "SRV2" dns record that'll let us combine all of regular SRV, XEP-0368, and the TXT records BOSH/Websockets use
moparisthebest
in addition to other nice to haves, ESNI, QUIC
moparisthebest
that would make it fairly clean discovery wise for S2S to use other transports
Daniel
Well discovery wouldn't be my biggest concern with that.
Daniel
I mean well-know 156 works
moparisthebest
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01 < I think this is the most recent
adiaholichas left
moparisthebest
yep discovery is just the easiest part perhaps, you are right
debaclehas joined
eevvoorhas joined
remkohas left
calvinhas joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
eevvoorhas left
mr.fisterhas left
Danielhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Danielhas joined
Nekithas joined
Wojtekhas left
pdurbinhas left
Danielhas left
ralphm
"[..] Other names might include "B", [..]
zachhas left
zachhas joined
ralphm
Yeah, that sounds like a teriffic idea, having an RR type called "B", next to "A".
ralphm
That said, I put it on my reading list.
moparisthebest
I think most of us would agree anything is better than HTTPSSVC though ? :)
moparisthebest
if we have any official contacts with IETF maybe we should push for SRV2, or, anything but HTTP*
ralphm
Anything is a stretch, but yeah, HTTPSSVC is not great.
moparisthebest
yep
ralphm
While the idea of having official contacts with the IETF for E2EE has come up, that doesn't mean anyone couldn't just participate at standards development at the IETF themselves.
ralphm
(as well)
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
pep.
Might be good to have a list of RFCs (or other standards) the XSF would like to follow or influence (not have everything become http*, for example), for which we could assign people to represent us (paid?)
pep.throwing ideas around
moparisthebest
the combination of ESNI which uses this HTTPSSVC should *just work* for us, though we might need some more SVCB types which would be defined elsewhere anyway
moparisthebest
like priority and weight are missing, the notes say "if you need them define them in another one"
moparisthebest
QUIC is another one to closely follow, I doubt we need anything they won't provide though, and I also doubt we could do anything about it if not...
emushas left
emushas joined
ralphm
moparisthebest, why not? Just like on standards@ you can simply subscribe to the relevant WG and provide input.
ralphm
Or show up at IETF events.
Danielhas joined
Shellhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas joined
asushas joined
asushas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas left
Yagizahas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
davidhas left
davidhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
remkohas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
j.rhas left
Danielhas left
davidhas left
davidhas joined
Danielhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Shellhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
remkohas left
dwd
I'm very much in favour of the XSF sponsoring people to attend IETFs, but as ralphm says, you can just join the right mailing list and make sensible comments at a good first step. Even just telling them there's an interested community is useful for them.
zachhas left
zachhas joined
MattJ
Yeah, showing up at IETF events is generally a bit harder than showing up at the XMPP summit
dwd
MattJ, It's pretty easy, just violently expensive.
MattJ
I understand why they move around the various corners of the planet, but yeah
Dele (Mobile)has joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
j.rhas joined
dwd
Yeah. One of the main reasons I'm not involved with IETF stuff very heavily is that I could never find an employer willing to pay for those trips, and it's very hard to do serious work without the meetings.
pdurbinhas joined
dwd
I've managed 8 RFCs, and only 3 meetings (and one was a day trip). I may be wrong, but I think I have to be one of very few RFC authors with more RFCs than meetings.
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
Nekithas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
pdurbinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
lovetoxhas left
remkohas joined
remkohas left
lovetoxhas joined
davidhas left
davidhas joined
Shellhas left
zachhas left
zachhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Shellhas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
Ge0rG
I'm already struggling to get a day off to webex into Summit...
lorddavidiiihas left
dwd
Ge0rG, You couldn't get three weeks off a year for the IETFs, then?
dwd
Ge0rG, Plus another three half weeks for interims if they're "that" kind of working group?
Ge0rG
dwd: probably not. I'm sure I'd get time and expenses if it was some industrial IT security forum, though.
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
adiaholichas joined
zachhas left
zachhas joined
stpeterhas joined
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
lovetoxhas left
Danielhas left
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
lovetoxhas joined
lovetoxhas left
matkorhas left
ralphm
dwd: great email just now
ralphm
Thanks
Danielhas joined
adiaholichas left
Danielhas left
dwd
Thanks. There's something about inward investment and economics as well, but I don't think I can phrase it well without sounding like I'm only interested in money.