XSF Discussion - 2020-01-17

  1. lskdjf has left

  2. Shell has left

  3. Shell has joined

  4. !XSF_Martin has left

  5. !XSF_Martin has joined

  6. Shell has left

  7. Shell has joined

  8. Daniel has joined

  9. Shell has left

  10. stpeter has left

  11. Daniel has left

  12. Daniel has joined

  13. debacle has left

  14. mukt2 has joined

  15. moparisthebest

    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

  16. lorddavidiii has left

  17. Daniel has left

  18. stpeter has joined

  19. Daniel has joined

  20. sonny has left

  21. Daniel has left

  22. stpeter has left

  23. serge90 has left

  24. serge90 has joined

  25. pdurbin has joined

  26. paul has left

  27. andrey.g has left

  28. stpeter has joined

  29. pdurbin has left

  30. mukt2 has left

  31. sonny has joined

  32. arc has left

  33. arc has joined

  34. mukt2 has joined

  35. Daniel has joined

  36. Shell has joined

  37. adiaholic has joined

  38. mukt2 has left

  39. mukt2 has joined

  40. calvin has joined

  41. Daniel has left

  42. Daniel has joined

  43. waqas has joined

  44. mukt2 has left

  45. mukt2 has joined

  46. Daniel has left

  47. karoshi has left

  48. calvin has left

  49. calvin has joined

  50. calvin has left

  51. calvin has joined

  52. mukt2 has left

  53. arc has left

  54. arc has joined

  55. Daniel has joined

  56. pdurbin has joined

  57. j.r has left

  58. Yagiza has joined

  59. pdurbin has left

  60. j.r has joined

  61. stpeter has left

  62. waqas has left

  63. calvin has left

  64. adiaholic has left

  65. adiaholic has joined

  66. Nekit has joined

  67. Shell has left

  68. Shell has joined

  69. andy has joined

  70. pdurbin has joined

  71. Daniel has left

  72. sonny has left

  73. Daniel has joined

  74. krauq has left

  75. Daniel has left

  76. krauq has joined

  77. andrey.g has joined

  78. lorddavidiii has joined

  79. !XSF_Martin has left

  80. sonny has joined

  81. mukt2 has joined

  82. Tobias has joined

  83. mukt2 has left

  84. j.r has left

  85. j.r has joined

  86. Daniel has joined

  87. arc has left

  88. arc has joined

  89. Daniel has left

  90. sonny has left

  91. Daniel has joined

  92. moparisthebest has left

  93. moparisthebest has joined

  94. !XSF_Martin has joined

  95. wurstsalat has joined

  96. Daniel has left

  97. arc has left

  98. Daniel has joined

  99. !XSF_Martin has left

  100. lorddavidiii has left

  101. lorddavidiii has joined

  102. emus has joined

  103. lorddavidiii has left

  104. lorddavidiii has joined

  105. Daniel has left

  106. Daniel has joined

  107. pdurbin has left

  108. lorddavidiii has left

  109. lorddavidiii has joined

  110. lovetox has joined

  111. Daniel has left

  112. matkor has joined

  113. Daniel has joined

  114. karoshi has joined

  115. matkor has left

  116. karoshi has left

  117. karoshi has joined

  118. paul has joined

  119. mathijs has left

  120. mathijs has joined

  121. Daniel has left

  122. zach has joined

  123. zach has left

  124. zach has joined

  125. genofire has left

  126. lorddavidiii has left

  127. lorddavidiii has joined

  128. genofire has joined

  129. larma has left

  130. Daniel has joined

  131. mathijs has left

  132. mathijs has joined

  133. lskdjf has joined

  134. larma has joined

  135. remko has joined

  136. Daniel has left

  137. lskdjf has left

  138. lskdjf has joined

  139. matkor has joined

  140. Daniel has joined

  141. moparisthebest has left

  142. moparisthebest has joined

  143. mimi89999 has left

  144. genofire has left

  145. lorddavidiii has left

  146. lorddavidiii has joined

  147. zach has left

  148. zach has joined

  149. mimi89999 has joined

  150. genofire has joined

  151. mathijs has left

  152. mathijs has joined

  153. goffi has joined

  154. 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.

  155. Shell has left

  156. 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

  157. pdurbin has joined

  158. sonny has joined

  159. zach has left

  160. dwd

    pep., If you'd like to explain why you think I'm wrong, please do so.

  161. zach has joined

  162. pep.

    I don't actually care if you're right or wrong here

  163. dwd

    Of course not.

  164. pep.

    that's not how we keep the dialogue going

  165. pep.

    and yes I disagree with your statement fwiw

  166. 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.

  167. dwd

    For example: ‎[18:30:14] ‎moparisthebest‎: as I stated before, GPL is not an encumbrance in my book

  168. pdurbin has left

  169. zach has left

  170. zach has joined

  171. 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

  172. jonas’

    dwd, I don’t see a problem with that statement

  173. jonas’

    that’s not asking to change anything

  174. jonas’

    that’s just explaining their viewpoint

  175. jonas’

    nothing wrong with that.

  176. 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)"

  177. dwd

    jonas’, Encumbrance has a legal definition that's really quite easy to find, as these things go.

  178. jonas’

    dwd, for someone who has no problems with GPL, it’s still not an encumbrance maybe?

  179. jonas’

    I’m not a native speaker, but you and moparisthebest are, I think

  180. jonas’

    (though from different locales methings)

  181. 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.

  182. dwd

    jonas’, I'm happy to clarify these things, of course, but they have a defined meaning.

  183. 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.

  184. jonas’

    dwd, which is fair and good, I think

  185. 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)

  186. zach has left

  187. zach has joined

  188. 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.

  189. zach has left

  190. zach has joined

  191. sonny has left

  192. jonas’

    dwd, I see. The viewpoint makes sense.

  193. jonas’

    I’m just worried about the level of hostility on both sides in this discussion.

  194. 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)

  195. sonny has joined

  196. lorddavidiii has left

  197. lorddavidiii has joined

  198. 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.

  199. lorddavidiii has left

  200. lorddavidiii has joined

  201. dwd

    (Our end-users do want E2EE; they also want nothing held on the device and a search function. You can imagine my fun.)

  202. winfried

    dwd: may I quote that one?

  203. dwd

    winfried, Not publicly please.

  204. dwd

    I actually have a candidate solution, but it's horrendous.

  205. remko has left

  206. remko has joined

  207. winfried

    dwd: OK, Was already including it in my e2e encryption presentation at fosdem, scrapping it again :-D

  208. dwd

    winfried, Without attribution and company name is fine.

  209. winfried

    dwd: (y)

  210. ralphm

    Good thing this room is not archived publicly. 😜

  211. jonas’

    dwd, you are aware that this room is publicly logged?

  212. dwd

    Yes, of course, but putting it in a presentation is rather different.

  213. lskdjf has left

  214. lskdjf has joined

  215. lorddavidiii has left

  216. lorddavidiii has joined

  217. 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.

  218. winfried

    dwd thanks

  219. winfried

    Daniel: for my information / knowledge, do you have a list of issues with the OMEMO spec? I love to have a better overview...

  220. winfried

    dwd: > work-wise we can't use any PFS/PCS solution I don't understand this comment, can you explain it?

  221. 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".

  222. winfried

    And what do you mean with 'work-wise'? I believe my biggest lack of understanding is there...

  223. 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?

  224. pep.

    winfried, https://github.com/Syndace/xeps/projects/1 that was a list Syndace pasted here

  225. pep.

    There are probably more

  226. 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.

  227. winfried

    dwd: clear.. I thought the 'we' referred to the XSF....

  228. Guus

    I think it was useful to separate the two discussions currently going on in the mailinglists, btw. Thanks for that.

  229. remko has left

  230. Zash

    We need the Hats XEP! :)

  231. winfried

    pep.: thanks, gives a clear picture already

  232. 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.

  233. Guus

    I'm thinking Experimental is at best only sideways-related to the rest - or am I missing something?

  234. Kev

    Guus: Experimental is (currently) the entry point, so it's definitely related.

  235. dwd

    Guus, Yes, I agree with Kev, these are all interrelated.

  236. 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?

  237. dwd

    Yes, that's true.

  238. Guus

    Meaning that any discussion on experimental should not affect the eventual outcome of a progression of a XEP through the stages.

  239. 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.

  240. Guus

    And those would be all good improvements.

  241. 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.

  242. Guus

    I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you, in my last email.

  243. Guus

    I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you did earlier, in my last email.

  244. sonny has left

  245. remko has joined

  246. Nekit has left

  247. dwd

    I think that's roughly in line with my original stance, which I have tried to compromise on.

  248. Nekit has joined

  249. 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

  250. 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!

  251. !XSF_Martin has joined

  252. remko has left

  253. Syndace has left

  254. Syndace has joined

  255. 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.

  256. larma has left

  257. larma has joined

  258. 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.

  259. 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.

  260. Guus

    (no argument from me)

  261. debacle has joined

  262. dwd

    Shit me. "That doesn't mean I don't think [...] isn't important". I'm turning into Kev. Sorry.

  263. !XSF_Martin has left

  264. Guus

    You're only realizing this now? 😃

  265. dwd

    Guus, I wasn't unaware of it.

  266. Guus

    that's my boy

  267. Guus

    Unrelated: you've disappeared from my roster again.

  268. Guus

    ah, no

  269. Guus


  270. Guus

    my client is acting up

  271. lorddavidiii has left

  272. zach has left

  273. zach has joined

  274. lorddavidiii has joined

  275. Guus

    dwd I'm trying to push a subscription request your way

  276. lorddavidiii has left

  277. mathijs has left

  278. lorddavidiii has joined

  279. mathijs has joined

  280. mathijs has left

  281. mathijs has joined

  282. remko has joined

  283. lorddavidiii has left

  284. lorddavidiii has joined

  285. lorddavidiii has left

  286. lorddavidiii has joined

  287. Wojtek has joined

  288. lorddavidiii has left

  289. lorddavidiii has joined

  290. remko has left

  291. Kev

    dwd: On the contrary, I get the right number of negatives into my incomprehensible mess :p

  292. eevvoor has joined

  293. mathijs has left

  294. mathijs has joined

  295. dwd

    Kev, I never said I didn't disagree.

  296. pdurbin has joined

  297. 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.

  298. 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.

  299. jonas’


  300. Kev

    So that first sentence of you costs 4 EUR to each non-native speaker?

  301. jonas’

    Kev, huh, where is the second negation there?

  302. jonas’


  303. jonas’

    s/any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs/any negation beyond the first in a sentence costs/

  304. jonas’


  305. Kev

    'any negation' = 1, 'number of negations' = 2 :)

  306. jonas’

    I’m gonna leave now

  307. Guus

    I'm gonna sit here, be quiet, and become rich.

  308. pdurbin has left

  309. dwd

    Guus, You're Dutch, you count as a native speaker. :-)

  310. Guus

    Will me exclaiming "no no no!" count against jonas’ rule?

  311. Kev

    I couldn't possibly count it out.

  312. pdurbin has joined

  313. lorddavidiii has left

  314. lorddavidiii has joined

  315. pdurbin has left

  316. adiaholic has left

  317. adiaholic has joined

  318. vanitasvitae has left

  319. vanitasvitae has joined

  320. zach has left

  321. zach has joined

  322. remko has joined

  323. emus has left

  324. emus has joined

  325. ralphm

    dwd: oops, in that case I've been lying quite a bit

  326. APach has left

  327. APach has joined

  328. remko has left

  329. dwd

    ralphm, Ik ben het daar niet mee oneens.

  330. ralphm

    dwd: :-D

  331. emus has left

  332. emus has joined

  333. Guus

    Jonas never limited it to any specific language. I'm guessing the first round at the hotel bar is on you. 🙂

  334. zach has left

  335. lorddavidiii has left

  336. zach has joined

  337. sonny has joined

  338. lorddavidiii has joined

  339. j.r has left

  340. j.r has joined

  341. winfried has left

  342. winfried has joined

  343. winfried has left

  344. winfried has joined

  345. stpeter has joined

  346. winfried has left

  347. winfried has joined

  348. Zash has left

  349. Zash has joined

  350. zach has left

  351. zach has joined

  352. !XSF_Martin has joined

  353. emus has left

  354. MattJ

    dwd, just tried a different email address for the Eurostar website, same error

  355. MattJ

    The only other thing it has is my phone number, I could try my landline

  356. MattJ

    or it just hates my name

  357. mukt2 has joined

  358. !XSF_Martin

    Is your last name Null?

  359. dwd

    "What do you mean, your surname is just 'J'?"

  360. MattJ

    Oh my, I did it

  361. Guus

    Who did you bribe?

  362. stpeter


  363. MattJ

    Different browser, incognito mode, paypal and my "other" email address... winning combo I'll have to remember for next year

  364. emus has joined

  365. dwd

    Same train as me?

  366. MattJ


  367. dwd

    Cheap afternoon one? Sounds right.

  368. MattJ


  369. dwd

    Last train back on Sunday?

  370. MattJ

    No, coming back on Monday

  371. MattJ

    Otherwise getting home that late is too difficult

  372. waqas has joined

  373. MattJ

    and crossing the border might take the whole day, etc.

  374. !XSF_Martin

    Isn't it still EU?

  375. Daniel

    oh; i had forgotten about that

  376. intosi

    Lovely timing.

  377. dwd

    Daniel, Yeah, I haven't.

  378. MattJ

    Great timing indeed

  379. 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

  380. Daniel

    i mean not about brexit in general. but the fact that it is - this time for real - happening right during fosdem

  381. 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.

  382. intosi

    dwd: the latter sounds ideal.

  383. !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.

  384. intosi

    Switzerland != EU.

  385. MattJ

    dwd, pilot licence valid in the EU?

  386. 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.

  387. lorddavidiii has left

  388. !XSF_Martin

    > Switzerland != EU. But Switzerland is Schengen.

  389. intosi


  390. 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.

  391. dwd

    !XSF_Martin, Ireland isn't Schengen either, and I believe there are other countries.

  392. intosi

    I suspect flying under the radar might put his license at risk, though.

  393. Zash

    dwd: paradrop?

  394. intosi

    Although, if he isn't caught doing so...

  395. dwd

    intosi, Only in the EU. ;-)

  396. lorddavidiii has joined

  397. dwd

    intosi, Flying in the dead of night is probably worse for his license, actually, given he doesn't have night qual.

  398. !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.

  399. !XSF_Martin

    Wikipedia says it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

  400. dwd

    !XSF_Martin, No, Ireland is in the CTA with the UK, which is one of the precursors along with Benelux.

  401. 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?

  402. !XSF_Martin

    Ah, thought your talking about Switzerland. Sorry.

  403. lorddavidiii has left

  404. Guus

    I'll be there on Wednesday too.

  405. dwd

    Guus, Well, yes, but only of Blegium so that doesn't count. Everyone invades Belgium.

  406. Guus


  407. lorddavidiii has joined

  408. 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

  409. moparisthebest

    clearly XEP-0001 fails at being clear enough on critical definitions like "open standard"

  410. moparisthebest

    so that should be fixed and let's move on

  411. mukt2 has left

  412. pdurbin has joined

  413. matkor has left

  414. mukt2 has joined

  415. remko has joined

  416. pdurbin has left

  417. emus has left

  418. zach has left

  419. larma has left

  420. larma has joined

  421. zach has joined

  422. 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.

  423. moparisthebest

    only in your mind

  424. moparisthebest

    it's not clear to me at least, for instance

  425. pep.

    it's also not clear to me.

  426. 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.

  427. 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.

  428. moparisthebest

    no, it should be crystal clear to the newcomers, or even anyone reading XEP-0001, or it has failed at it's task

  429. Kev

    I think you misread what I said.

  430. moparisthebest

    yes I did, I'll agree with that one :)

  431. emus has joined

  432. 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

  433. remko has left

  434. moparisthebest

    exactly jonas’ , I never really thought too hard about it either until just recently

  435. mimi89999 has left

  436. mimi89999 has joined

  437. !XSF_Martin has left

  438. !XSF_Martin has joined

  439. 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.

  440. stpeter has left

  441. krauq has left

  442. krauq has joined

  443. emus has left

  444. 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...

  445. 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

  446. moparisthebest

    if we do make legal opinions, then we need to edit XEP-0001 to clarify a ton of stuff

  447. 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"

  448. moparisthebest

    and decide what to do about GPL

  449. jonas’

    we’re not qualified for htat

  450. 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

  451. jonas’

    which is an encumberance

  452. jonas’

    all on its own

  453. ralphm


  454. 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.

  455. moparisthebest

    you have to form a legal opinion anytime you implement anything

  456. jonas’

    that’s a restriction and something very scary to legal departments

  457. zach has left

  458. zach has joined

  459. mimi89999 has left

  460. mimi89999 has joined

  461. 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?)

  462. 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.

  463. moparisthebest

    the XSF doesn't have a clear enough definition for me to decide

  464. moparisthebest

    "open standard" appears 1 time in XEP-0001, and no times in the IPR policy, and no definitions anywhere

  465. mimi89999 has left

  466. mimi89999 has joined

  467. adiaholic has left

  468. Ge0rG

    is this the third or the fourth round we are doing here?

  469. 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.

  470. 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.

  471. emus has joined

  472. jonas’

    Ge0rG, sixth, methinks

  473. Guus

    Ge0rG I'm thinking we're in the double-digits.

  474. moparisthebest

    Ge0rG, isn't it just one long discussion?

  475. jonas’

    moparisthebest, a long discussion would move beyond re-iterating the same points each and every day

  476. ralphm

    moparisthebest, do you understand the piece that Guus copied from the IPR Policy?

  477. stpeter has joined

  478. Ge0rG

    what jonas said

  479. Ge0rG

    oh god this train wifi at 200km/h is lagging

  480. 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

  481. Ge0rG

    and poezio is re-connecting all the time. Sigh

  482. moparisthebest

    I mean yesterday dwd accused me of "bullying the XSF into my interpretation [sic]" and I'm clarifying that's not my intent

  483. dwd

    In fairness, I was quoting Daniel there.

  484. Daniel

    moparisthebest: fwiw I don't think he did. And I was the one who brought up the term

  485. Daniel

    And I wasn't referring to you

  486. moparisthebest

    yep that's fair, I'm not personally insulted, it's just clear my intent has not came across how I had planned

  487. Guus

    What do we need to resolve this?

  488. Kev

    A deep breath. (first)

  489. jonas’

    on all parties, please

  490. Daniel

    Actually I was partially referring to myself and/or myself from a couple of years ago when we first had the omemo debate

  491. 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.

  492. Guus

    I'll see Kev's Welsh and raise him with my Dutch.

  493. jonas’

    Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today!

  494. jonas’

    Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today! (in a good way)

  495. calvin has joined

  496. 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

  497. 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.

  498. moparisthebest

    some type of update to XEP-0001 with some clarification would be good

  499. 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).

  500. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: that we probably all can agree on

  501. jonas’

    Kev, that seems realistic

  502. Ge0rG

    maybe we can just call out the weekend, then?

  503. 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

  504. 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.

  505. Kev

    And then the people who've found it confusing can comment on whether it helps as a clarification or not

  506. Ge0rG

    Kev: yes, it should be done by somebody who doesn't involve too much prose.

  507. moparisthebest

    that sounds perfect Kev

  508. 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)

  509. 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)

  510. !XSF_Martin has left

  511. 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 :)

  512. 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.

  513. Guus

    (in my experience, writing less prose is more work)

  514. Kev

    Guus: y

  515. Guus

    I have no issue with that approach. Seems sensible to me. Thanks.

  516. emus has left

  517. 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

  518. zach has left

  519. emus has joined

  520. zach has joined

  521. Syndace has left

  522. Syndace has joined

  523. 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

  524. 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.

  525. Kev

    Using my almost-the-laziest-Editor-we've-got superpowers.

  526. stpeter has left

  527. moparisthebest

    ah it's unlocked now, I can do it!

  528. Kev


  529. remko has joined

  530. emus has left

  531. emus has joined

  532. !XSF_Martin has joined

  533. mukt2 has left

  534. krauq has left

  535. krauq has joined

  536. waqas has left

  537. zach has left

  538. zach has joined

  539. waqas has joined

  540. stpeter has joined

  541. remko has left

  542. genofire has left

  543. genofire has joined

  544. ralphm

    Kev: if I take this task, will that free you up to come to the summit?

  545. lovetox has left

  546. Kev

    Hah. Sadly not.

  547. ralphm

    Hey, I tried.

  548. ralphm

    It is kinda unconfortable to not have a Kev there.

  549. ralphm

    It is kinda uncomfortable to not have a Kev there.

  550. adiaholic has joined

  551. genofire has left

  552. Kev

    I'm sure Diegem will somehow cope with the great double-negatives drought of 2020.

  553. genofire has joined

  554. remko has joined

  555. dwd

    I don't think I'm not the only one who won't say I'm not disappointed.

  556. ralphm

    Is dwd not coming either?

  557. ralphm

    Nor intosi?

  558. pep.

    I vote for jonas’' idea of negation jar.

  559. j.r has left

  560. Kev

    dwd's going, I believe.

  561. intosi

    I'm going as well.

  562. dwd

    ralphm, I'll come. Double negatives I can do, but Kev has cornered the market in the triple.

  563. ralphm

    I do not intend to not attent.

  564. intosi

    I can't promise I won't try avoiding not sneaking in a few n-negatives.

  565. lovetox has joined

  566. adiaholic has left

  567. zach has left

  568. zach has joined

  569. mukt2 has joined

  570. emus has left

  571. mimi89999 has left

  572. Dele (Mobile) has left

  573. adiaholic has joined

  574. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  575. lovetox has left

  576. emus has joined

  577. lovetox has joined

  578. eevvoor has left

  579. mukt2 has left

  580. mathijs has left

  581. mathijs has joined

  582. sonny has left

  583. j.r has joined

  584. zach has left

  585. zach has joined

  586. remko has left

  587. Ge0rG

    jonas’: the Jan 2nd votes are all tagged as EXPIRED in the spreadsheet of doom

  588. jonas’

    that’s correct

  589. jonas’

    because they weren’t complete

  590. jonas’

    I need to trigger editor actions

  591. Ge0rG

    but even in incomplete state, I think they all look like decided, right?

  592. jonas’

    yeah, I didn’t code it

  593. Ge0rG


  594. Ge0rG

    not trying to blame you, I just wondered

  595. Ge0rG

    (also reading up on the MAMFC thread, slowly)

  596. sonny has joined

  597. mukt2 has joined

  598. mathijs has left

  599. mathijs has joined

  600. zach has left

  601. zach has joined

  602. mukt2 has left

  603. genofire has left

  604. genofire has joined

  605. matkor has joined

  606. mathijs has left

  607. mathijs has joined

  608. lovetox has left

  609. dwd

    Yeah, I never got beyond "expired", and I actually wanted to highlight them even though they might be decisive.

  610. sonny has left

  611. mimi89999 has joined

  612. !XSF_Martin has left

  613. !XSF_Martin has joined

  614. adiaholic has left

  615. mukt2 has joined

  616. zach has left

  617. zach has joined

  618. remko has joined

  619. lovetox has joined

  620. serge90 has left

  621. serge90 has joined

  622. aj has joined

  623. calvin has left

  624. Shell has joined

  625. lovetox has left

  626. lovetox has joined

  627. j.r has left

  628. j.r has joined

  629. j.r has left

  630. j.r has joined

  631. remko has left

  632. remko has joined

  633. j.r has left

  634. aj has left

  635. mathijs has left

  636. mathijs has joined

  637. zach has left

  638. zach has joined

  639. waqas has left

  640. adiaholic has joined

  641. stpeter has left

  642. rion has left

  643. rion has joined

  644. lorddavidiii has left

  645. lorddavidiii has joined

  646. j.r has joined

  647. mimi89999 has left

  648. mimi89999 has joined

  649. lorddavidiii has left

  650. lorddavidiii has joined

  651. remko has left

  652. stpeter has joined

  653. remko has joined

  654. j.r has left

  655. lovetox has left

  656. zach has left

  657. zach has joined

  658. andrey.g has left

  659. Nekit has left

  660. mimi89999 has left

  661. mimi89999 has joined

  662. debacle has left

  663. j.r has joined

  664. mukt2 has left

  665. stpeter has left

  666. andrey.g has joined

  667. Daniel

    Has anyone ever done / thought about something like BOSH for s2s?

  668. zach has left

  669. zach has joined

  670. marc

    What is the use case?

  671. 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

  672. moparisthebest

    in addition to other nice to haves, ESNI, QUIC

  673. moparisthebest

    that would make it fairly clean discovery wise for S2S to use other transports

  674. Daniel

    Well discovery wouldn't be my biggest concern with that.

  675. Daniel

    I mean well-know 156 works

  676. moparisthebest

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01 < I think this is the most recent

  677. adiaholic has left

  678. moparisthebest

    yep discovery is just the easiest part perhaps, you are right

  679. debacle has joined

  680. eevvoor has joined

  681. remko has left

  682. calvin has joined

  683. Dele (Mobile) has left

  684. zach has left

  685. zach has joined

  686. pdurbin has joined

  687. lorddavidiii has left

  688. eevvoor has left

  689. mr.fister has left

  690. Daniel has left

  691. lorddavidiii has joined

  692. Daniel has joined

  693. Nekit has joined

  694. Wojtek has left

  695. pdurbin has left

  696. Daniel has left

  697. ralphm

    "[..] Other names might include "B", [..]

  698. zach has left

  699. zach has joined

  700. ralphm

    Yeah, that sounds like a teriffic idea, having an RR type called "B", next to "A".

  701. ralphm

    That said, I put it on my reading list.

  702. moparisthebest

    I think most of us would agree anything is better than HTTPSSVC though ? :)

  703. moparisthebest

    if we have any official contacts with IETF maybe we should push for SRV2, or, anything but HTTP*

  704. ralphm

    Anything is a stretch, but yeah, HTTPSSVC is not great.

  705. moparisthebest


  706. 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.

  707. ralphm

    (as well)

  708. calvin has left

  709. calvin has joined

  710. 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?)

  711. pep. throwing ideas around

  712. 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

  713. moparisthebest

    like priority and weight are missing, the notes say "if you need them define them in another one"

  714. 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...

  715. emus has left

  716. emus has joined

  717. ralphm

    moparisthebest, why not? Just like on standards@ you can simply subscribe to the relevant WG and provide input.

  718. ralphm

    Or show up at IETF events.

  719. Daniel has joined

  720. Shell has left

  721. zach has left

  722. zach has joined

  723. remko has joined

  724. asus has joined

  725. asus has left

  726. zach has left

  727. zach has joined

  728. remko has left

  729. Yagiza has left

  730. lorddavidiii has left

  731. lorddavidiii has joined

  732. david has left

  733. david has joined

  734. zach has left

  735. zach has joined

  736. remko has joined

  737. mathijs has left

  738. mathijs has joined

  739. j.r has left

  740. Daniel has left

  741. david has left

  742. david has joined

  743. Daniel has joined

  744. zach has left

  745. zach has joined

  746. Shell has joined

  747. mathijs has left

  748. mathijs has joined

  749. Shell has left

  750. Shell has joined

  751. lovetox has joined

  752. remko has left

  753. 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.

  754. zach has left

  755. zach has joined

  756. MattJ

    Yeah, showing up at IETF events is generally a bit harder than showing up at the XMPP summit

  757. dwd

    MattJ, It's pretty easy, just violently expensive.

  758. MattJ

    I understand why they move around the various corners of the planet, but yeah

  759. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  760. Shell has left

  761. Shell has joined

  762. j.r has joined

  763. 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.

  764. pdurbin has joined

  765. 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.

  766. !XSF_Martin has left

  767. !XSF_Martin has joined

  768. !XSF_Martin has left

  769. !XSF_Martin has joined

  770. !XSF_Martin has left

  771. Nekit has left

  772. !XSF_Martin has joined

  773. !XSF_Martin has left

  774. pdurbin has left

  775. !XSF_Martin has joined

  776. !XSF_Martin has left

  777. !XSF_Martin has joined

  778. zach has left

  779. zach has joined

  780. lovetox has left

  781. remko has joined

  782. remko has left

  783. lovetox has joined

  784. david has left

  785. david has joined

  786. Shell has left

  787. zach has left

  788. zach has joined

  789. mathijs has left

  790. mathijs has joined

  791. Shell has joined

  792. zach has left

  793. zach has joined

  794. Ge0rG

    I'm already struggling to get a day off to webex into Summit...

  795. lorddavidiii has left

  796. dwd

    Ge0rG, You couldn't get three weeks off a year for the IETFs, then?

  797. dwd

    Ge0rG, Plus another three half weeks for interims if they're "that" kind of working group?

  798. Ge0rG

    dwd: probably not. I'm sure I'd get time and expenses if it was some industrial IT security forum, though.

  799. lovetox has left

  800. lovetox has joined

  801. adiaholic has joined

  802. zach has left

  803. zach has joined

  804. stpeter has joined

  805. Alex has left

  806. Alex has joined

  807. larma has left

  808. larma has joined

  809. lovetox has left

  810. lovetox has joined

  811. lovetox has left

  812. Daniel has left

  813. Maranda has left

  814. Maranda has joined

  815. lovetox has joined

  816. lovetox has left

  817. matkor has left

  818. ralphm

    dwd: great email just now

  819. ralphm


  820. Daniel has joined

  821. adiaholic has left

  822. Daniel has left

  823. 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.

  824. pdurbin has joined

  825. Daniel has joined

  826. paul has left

  827. Daniel has left

  828. calvin has left

  829. Tobias has left

  830. pdurbin has left

  831. calvin has joined

  832. Daniel has joined

  833. calvin has left

  834. calvin has joined

  835. calvin has left

  836. calvin has joined

  837. debacle has left

  838. Daniel has left

  839. Daniel has joined

  840. zach has left

  841. zach has joined

  842. Daniel has left

  843. calvin has left

  844. goffi has left