XSF Discussion - 2020-02-04

  1. jonas’


  2. jonas’

    a colleage brought a proper XMPP sticker from fosdem

  3. jonas’

    I can finally get rid of my ugly square one

  4. Guus

    jonas’: 🤘

  5. fippo

    when one googles for "xep-0391" google thinks it was published in 1969... because the date in the example is 1969-07-21...

  6. MattJ


  7. Zash

    Having looked into this, I'd strongly recommend staying away from it if you value your sanity.

  8. Zash

    Oh neither of Google and DuckDuckGo understands the dates on prosody.im still? I thoguht I got at least one of them to understand 😞

  9. fippo

    oh yes 0202 (entity time) is even better. the publication date is right (2009), then continues with a date from 2006 and a random paragraph about jabber:iq:time. Clearly googlebot is drunk

  10. Zash

    IIRC there's no sane way to set a 'last modified' time on a web page.

  11. Zash

    Most of the various ways you can set a date is "created" or similar

  12. ralphm

    fippo: I think it just finds the very first full ISO timestamp (with a T in it), which for XEP-0202 is indeed 2006-12-19T17:58:35Z. And it is not a random paragraph, is it? It is the first paragraph of the main text?

  13. MattJ

    Heh, relevant reading made it to the top of HN: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-06

  14. ralphm


  15. Guus

    the SCAM work team has taken op the challenge to generate some leaflets, folders an the like that provide information about XMPP. For starters, we'll re-use content from the website. I'd like everyone to review the text on the website to see if the content is still relevant/up-to-date. Of particular interest: https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview.html https://xmpp.org/about/myths.html https://xmpp.org/about/faq.html but maybe other pages too.

  16. Guus

    I welcome your PR's 🙂

  17. Guus

    (thank you)

  18. ralphm

    If we had team mentions, I'd tag @commteam.

  19. ralphm

    But I'll have another look myself, too. Great idea.

  20. nyco

    oh hey, a mention!

  21. nyco

    what was that about?

  22. ralphm

    nyco: just what was written above by Guus about leaflets.

  23. flow

    Today in the news: MLS encumbered? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4015/

  24. pep.


  25. flow

    I remember that (likely) this patent, Qrypt Inc. and MLS where on HN(?) a while ago

  26. winfried

    flow: interesting, I haven't time nor energy to read the patent right now, but if it is patenting double ratchet in 2016 then it seems to be quite futile to me...

  27. larma

    winfried, I think the relevant part is the epoch key exchange (instead of with every message like signal/omemo/olm do)

  28. larma

    They do reference the signal protocol as prior art in the field, so copycats of signal protocol like omemo/olm don't need to care that patent

  29. moparisthebest

    well that's clearly worse than GPL

  30. winfried

    Does MLS use epoch keys? (still no time nor energy to confirm myself)

  31. larma

    moparisthebest, if I understand Dave's mail correctly, he agrees there are no GPL issues with omemo per se. he seems to be fine with omemo being based on signal protocol as long as there is documentation of how to use olm for that (so there are easy instructions how to do omemo without using gpl libraries) - that however can't be a requirement for a XEP in general IMO (it should be perfectly fine if there is only a GPL implementation as long as the only reason there is no non-gpl implementation is the fact that nobody wanted to write one)

  32. larma

    winfried, that's what I understood, but I also haven't read the current spec

  33. moparisthebest

    sorry, I was mainly joking that "only GPL users are guaranteed legally to be able to use this spec" is clearly a better situation than "some company owns a patent on it and no one can use it"

  34. larma

    moparisthebest, usually you can still use patented stuff as long as you don't do it commercially, but yeah I agree patents are worse than GPL in general

  35. vanitasvitae

    flow: you mean this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21954006

  36. ralphm

    larma: the commercial use does make it an issue for us. Unsure about the IETF.

  37. vanitasvitae

    Some discussion around it: https://mobile.twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1213356702399115267

  38. pep.

    is there a definition of "commercial" somewhere btw

  39. ralphm

    Hey, an ex-colleague

  40. moparisthebest

    not one across all jurisdictions, of course patents don't apply across all either

  41. pep.

    to know in what context we're using it

  42. ralphm

    pep., the problem is in the phrase "as long as you don't". Everything that follows is an incumbrance.

  43. Holger

    https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview.html links to https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc7622.html which returns 404 ...

  44. intosi

    That's likely to be true for more links to the IETF then.

  45. intosi

    That's likely to be true for more links to the RFCs then.

  46. Holger

    https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html and 6121 work ...

  47. pep.

    why do we not link to the ietf?

  48. moparisthebest

    could probably work up a rewrite to 302 to the ietf on any of those

  49. Holger

    pep.: Probably to be 100% sure the link won't go dead? ;-)

  50. moparisthebest

    and how's that working out :)

  51. intosi

    We never hosted 7622 in the first place.

  52. intosi

    Only 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, 4622, 4854, 5122, 6120, 6121, and 6122.

  53. Holger

    Well we link it.

  54. intosi

    Indeed we do.

  55. dwd

    For those not in summit, does anyone have a fever, cough, bad chest etc?

  56. Guus

    He means: for everyone that is not in the summit muc, but attended the XMPP summit and/or FOSDEM in Brussels last week.

  57. dwd

    That, yes.

  58. pep.

    dwd, something something virus?

  59. jonas’

    well, I do have a cough but unless webex now transmits diseases, that’s probably unrelated.

  60. moparisthebest

    nope you only get the DRM disease from that

  61. dwd

    pep., I have potential 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It's fun.

  62. pep.


  63. pep.

    Tbh I was expecting some kind of epidemic at FOSDEM :)

  64. pep.


  65. jonas’

    oh dear

  66. jonas’

    dwd, I hope you get well soon

  67. jonas’

    I shouldn’t have talked about how to get rid of europes hackers by poisining mate at conferences too loudly in the other room, it seems /conspiracies

  68. pep.

    It happened.

  69. dwd

    Well, thankfully I'm informed I'm very low risk.

  70. intosi

    Once more ;)

  71. ralphm

    Also, I believe this weekend was the start of the 'regular' flu season in Belgium, so there's that.

  72. Zash

    Maybe it's because of FOSDEM? :P