because if it returns the register form with an error, and type = modify
lovetox
i would not request the form again
lovetox
instead show the form attached to the error iq
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
jonas’
the form may not be included in the IQ error reply.
lovetox
then i will not display it
lovetox
and need to request it again
lovetox
but especially for form errors it is nice to attach the form
Guus
Even if the suggested modification makes sense, I wonder if changing that now, given that this was defined 15 years ago, would hurt more than it'd bring benefits.
lovetox
so we have error and the corresponding form with the values
lovetox
in one single place
lovetox
Guus, i thought examples are not normative, so can be changed any time
Guus
Not being normative doesn't mean 'that's how people have been doing it' - I'm not sure if that's actually the case, though, but I'd least consider that such a change might introduce issues for existing implementations.
eevvoorhas left
lovetox
i dont care much about changing it, but i want to write my code so that if some server dev someday cares about a good user experience for ibr, its at least possible
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
Ge0rG
We can't change a Final XEP, can we?
lovetox
but i dont see how this would cause any problem for an implementation
lovetox
if a implementation follows the RFC
lovetox
cancel -- do not retry (the error cannot be remedied)
lovetox
this would mean a client would not let a user try again on a username conflict
lovetox
and i guess we can all guess this is very unlikely
lovetox
so every client already ignores the type
Ge0rG
lovetox: unless a client is hardcoded to treat type=cancel for retry ;)
lovetox
then it would not follow the RFC, as it says *do not retry* :D
Ge0rG
XEP beats RFC
lovetox
like never, you had one try to register at this server and you failed
eta
lovetox: haha
Ge0rG
> Note: Once an XMPP Extension Protocol has been advanced to a status of Final, every effort shall be made to limit the scope of modifications; in particular, backwards-incompatible changes shall not be made. However, limited modifications may be made as long as they are optional, backwards-compatible extensions rather than modifications to the core protocol itself. Therefore, a Final protocol is safe for deployment in mission-critical applications.
Good luck! ;)
adityaborikarhas left
adityaborikarhas joined
Zash
Did the '77 author perhaps simply copy https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#stanzas-error-conditions-conflict
Zash
Says <conflict> SHOULD go with "cancel"
eta
Ge0rG: time for a new XEP
Zash
IBR2?
Zash
IBR2!
eta
Best Practices for In-Band Registration :p
Zash
"Don't"
Ge0rG
eta: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0389.html
eta
I like IBR though :c
lovetox
does a server support 0389?
Zash
Does a client support 0389?
eta
answers: no
Ge0rG
chicken-egg IBR
adityaborikarhas left
adityaborikarhas joined
Andrzejhas left
lovetox
i would be willing to implement it, if some server dev also would work on the server side
eevvoorhas joined
Zash
I might have half an implementation somewhere
Zash
However I imagine it predatest the latest updates and will need some changes
if you want to test, there is a switch in advanced config editor to force enable it
werdanhas joined
karoshihas joined
karoshihas left
intosihas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
karoshihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
intosihas joined
marc
lovetox: i have a wip implementation for 389
marc
for ejabberd
lorddavidiiihas joined
marc
The plan is to implement basic registration and enhance it later with token / 401
lorddavidiiihas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lovetox
good to know, i ping you once i have time to work on it
marc
yep, my client is implemented with aioxmpp
lorddavidiiihas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
lovetoxhas left
andrey.ghas left
intosihas left
debaclehas left
eevvoorhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
pasdesushihas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
intosihas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
antranigvhas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
davidhas left
davidhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
debaclehas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
APachhas left
APachhas joined
Lancehas joined
alex-a-sotohas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
emus
Why is the /me command actually part of the compliance suite?
Zash
It's expected of clients to support it
Ge0rG
emus: because it's my favorite command!
emusunderstands 🙂
Zash
Because you didn't invent a XEP to replace it!!1!1!1eleventyeleven!
emus
just out of interest because I was wondering why this goes to the level of good experience
emus
(like group chat)
Dele Olajidehas joined
marc
> just out of interest because I was wondering why this goes to the level of good experience
> (like group chat)
+1 :)
Ge0rG
It's about creating a consistent IM experience over different clients.
Ge0rG
That and Consistent Colors were the most contested additions
Ge0rG
I'll try to sneak in some more UX this year
Ge0rG
marc: speaking of which, how do we proceed with 0401?
marc
Ge0rG: as mentioned before, I have a poc for 389 for ejabberd
marc
Once that's done I will continue with 401
marc
Unfortunately, the token thing is not that easy with ejabberd
Ge0rG
marc: prosody has implemented the token thing already, even both variants AFAICT.
emus
Sure, it's not that I dont like it
marc
Ge0rG: not based on 389 I guess?
Ge0rG
marc: no, because of chicken and eggs
sonnyhas left
marc
Yes, I don't like the solo action of prosedy
Ge0rG
The solo action of fixing a long standing problem?
Ge0rG
Together with two (three?) client implementations?
sonnyhas joined
Ge0rG
marc: when we implemented 401, we had the impression that there is no implementation yet of it
marc
I don't see lots of new users just because this solo action ;)
Ge0rG
My goal was to make it fly with minimal new protocol, not to reinvent all of IBR
Ge0rG
marc: have you seen the new prosody invitation page?
marc
Ge0rG, maybe, I don't remeber... I saw something some time ago
marc
link?
Ge0rG
https://blog.prosody.im/great-invitations/
Ge0rG
marc: live install on https://xmpp-trial1.ietf.org/
marc
Ge0rG, nice page :)
Ge0rG
MattJ: ⬆️👍
marc
I don't like to approach and the protocol but the page is nice
marc
Also the blog post
Ge0rG
marc: users don't care about the protocol
marc
Ge0rG, sure, I'm not a user ;)
werdanhas left
MattJ
Mistake #1 :)
Ge0rG
marc: why aren't you using MIX yet, then?
marc
MattJ, I'm a user but I care about the protocol
MattJ
So do I
marc
Ge0rG, sorry but I don't want to waste my little time about useless discussions (MIX)
Ge0rG
marc: thanks for the excellent idea of using "I don't care about protocol" as my Council 2021 slogan!
MattJ
I care about the protocol, I also care about getting things done
MattJ
Where is the new XEP-0401, since the previous attempt at fixing it was reverted?
marc
MattJ, I sent you a proposal quite some time ago but you never responded
marc
No blaming, just saying
MattJ
I think I approved it verbally after looking through?
marc
No, you had no time
MattJ
In any case, please don't hold off a new revision because of me
MattJ
I am sure feedback will come if there are still improvements to be made
marc
Ge0rG, again, no time for trolling sorry
Ge0rG
marc: I'm not trolling
vseleznvhas joined
Zash
Hey if I could say "Bring back 2006-era XMPP" and get on Council, why not that?
eevvoorhas left
pasdesushihas joined
Ge0rG
marc: I'd love to have a working and documented way to invite people to xmpp. So far I have to choose between those two, and you know how I chose
marc
two?
Nekithas joined
Ge0rG
Working or documented
vseleznvhas left
marc
Yep, either we have to change it later then or you have to document it properly
MattJ
The current implementation is working and documented
lorddavidiiihas left
Andrzejhas left
marc
Then everything is fine?
Ge0rG
marc: like this? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/874
Nekithas left
Ge0rG
Now I'm trolling
Zash
Only Daniel responded to that thread?
Nekithas joined
adityaborikarhas left
pasdesushihas left
Ge0rG
I could also fork 0401 or make a new "Using 0401 with a pre IBR IQ" XEP. But that would require 0401 to be in a stable state
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
marc
Ge0rG, what is your question?
Ge0rG
> marc: speaking of which, how do we proceed with 0401?
pasdesushihas joined
marc
Ge0rG, you know my standpoint, no?
Andrzejhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
MattJ
As I see it, the XEP was stalled with no implementations and unanswered questions. Out of necessity we figured out a solution, implemented it in 4 clients and 1 server. The update wasn't accepted, and the XEP has not been updated since.
Ge0rG
marc: so we are not going to reach agreement?
MattJ
The preauth iq was chosen for maximum compatibility with all current and future IBR mechanisms
jonas’
MattJ, appeal to council to transfer authorship of the XEP and get it documented?
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
marc
Ge0rG, MattJ I don't care what you guys do but I don't like the approach so I won't spend on it
Ge0rG
marc: I'd like to document our approach under the XSF umbrella
marc
But document it if you like
marc
Ge0rG, sure, I won't block it
marc
Why would I?
Ge0rG
marc: you already did
marc
Ge0rG, you should take authorship in that case then?
MattJ
marc: it matters to me if we don't get an ejabberd implementation
marc
MattJ, I'm not an ejabberd maintainer nor regular dev
marc
I'm working on 389 - that's it
MattJ
I care less about documentation, it is already documented on xmpp.org and modernxmpp.org
MattJ
But I don't want to see the ecosystem split, or for this to be Prosody-only thing
MattJ
It's too important
sonnyhas left
marc
MattJ, me too
werdanhas joined
marc
But I don't want to spend time on a token-only thing
marc
That's why I'm interested in 389 - that's it
MattJ
Ok, so can we get the rejected revision of 401 republished?
Zash
For Attic?
MattJ
It is already in attic
MattJ
I link to it
Zash
Oh
Ge0rG
marc: I don't want to disown you. If you are okay with giving me authorship, well, now we are talking. But I'd rather have a separate document with that pre-ibr iq documented, but that requires that you finish 0401
pasdesushihas left
Ge0rG
It's been in limbo for over a year now
Zash
Wanna publish something as an Historical XEP?
marc
Ge0rG, I don't care about ownership
Ge0rG
marc: do you care about 0401?
marc
Ge0rG, but maybe it makes sense to make different XEPs for different approaches? I don't know
lorddavidiiihas joined
marc
Would be nice to have *one* approach but I don't see this atm
MattJ
marc: can you summarize what makes your approach fundamentally different?
marc
MattJ, there is no fundamental difference, just based on an extenisble approach (389) which will be implemented sooner or later anyway (my assumption)
Ge0rG
Version 0.0.1 (2018-01-10)
First submission.
Ge0rG
marc: well, you can't force people to implement 389 by requiring it in a semi related other xep
MattJ
It seems easiest to me if we do just submit preauth as a separate XEP
Ge0rG
MattJ: a separate XEP based on what?
MattJ
What do you mean?
marc
Ge0rG, I don't want to force anybody
marc
Ge0rG, just my feeling that we need something extensible anyway in the future
Ge0rG
MattJ: 0401 still contains TODOs
lorddavidiiihas left
MattJ
Ge0rG: well, we'll have to factor out or duplicate common parts
Ge0rG
marc: nothing wrong to put the working approach into 0401 now and add 389 in that extensible future
MattJ
E.g. make 0401 only about obtaining URIs/URLs?
MattJ
And define registration flow in other docs
Ge0rG
MattJ: fine with me
marc
sounds good
MattJ
We are all in agreement about the adhoc commands in 401, right?
Ge0rG
marc: who should do the splitting?
Ge0rG
MattJ: yes
MattJ
Great
marc
Yes
Ge0rG
Can we get 402 and 403? 😁
marc
They're already taken, no?
Ge0rG
Yes
Ge0rG
marc: are you okay with me or MattJ splitting out the registration parts from 0401 into a new XEP?
marc
Ge0rG, sure!
Ge0rG
Perfect, thanks!
Ge0rG
marc: do you want to keep a XEP for the modified IBR that was discouraged by Council, or would you like to aim right for 388?✎
Ge0rG
marc: do you want to keep a XEP for the modified IBR that was discouraged by Council, or would you like to aim right for 389? ✏
Ge0rG
The part that's currently in §5.5
marc
Ge0rG, No, I would aim right for 389
Ge0rG
marc: do you have anything written up for 389?
marc
Ge0rG, spec-wise?
Ge0rG
Yes, we could aim for two consecutive XEP numbers
marc
Ge0rG, no, but it's not more than a few lines of text I guess
marc
I prefer to have a poc implementation before writing something down
sonnyhas joined
Ge0rG
marc: I'm not sure I want to wait that long
Andrzejhas left
Dele Olajidehas left
MattJ
I'm off for a bit, thanks for the productive discussion, I think we're getting somewhere :)
marc
Yep
wladmishas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
sonnyhas left
rionhas left
Andrzejhas joined
marc
Ge0rG, I'm afk next week, so if you need something from my side let me know this week