SamWhitedLooks like this co-op magazine about the web might be taking submissions if anyone is a good writer and wants to make a few extra dollars while writing about XMPP: https://compost.digital/
jcbrandhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
wladmishas left
wurstsalathas left
qnixhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Sevehas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Adihas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Adihas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
qnixhas left
Andrzejhas left
qnixhas joined
Vaulorhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
lskdjfhas left
Yagizahas joined
DebXWoodyhas left
DebXWoodyhas joined
andyhas joined
Tobiashas joined
dancannshas joined
dancannshas left
Andrzejhas joined
krauqhas left
qnixhas left
qnixhas joined
krauqhas joined
paulhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
ti_gj06has left
ti_gj06has joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
jcbrandhas left
wurstsalathas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
nycohas left
Mikaelahas joined
nycohas joined
wladmishas joined
Andrzejhas left
wladmishas left
emushas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
mathijshas left
derdanielhas left
derdanielhas joined
mathijshas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas joined
nycohas left
qnixhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
nycohas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
florettahas left
florettahas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
debaclehas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
paulhas left
qnixhas joined
paulhas joined
Andrzejhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
davidhas left
davidhas joined
jcbrandhas joined
Viktorhas joined
qnixhas left
qnixhas joined
goffihas joined
karoshihas joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
stphas joined
derdanielhas left
derdanielhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Zashhas left
Andrzejhas joined
purplebeetroothas left
goffihas left
derdanielhas left
derdanielhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
stphas left
stphas joined
nycohas left
paulhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
qnixhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
alameyohas joined
goffihas joined
MattJSamWhited:
> Does it matter if you include <after> in Result Set management, but also set after-id in the MAM form? Does the latest ID win?
The form is the filter query, RSM is for paging through the results of the query.
ZashSamWhited: I think you misunderstood what was said. The RSM 'after' corresponds to OFFSET in SQL
SamWhitedI don't see how that's different than. after-id still
Zashafter-id is WHERE
RSM after is OFFSET
jonas’SamWhited, that `after` in MAM-RSM corresponds to the stanza ID is an implementation detail you must not rely on
jonas’on the surface it doesn’t matter, but there are ugly edge cases and long mailing list discussions which came to be because of the lack of a WHERE which is separate from the RSM-<after/>/<before/>-LIMIT mechanism
ZashThe MAM stuff selects a subset of messages. RSM shifts a view over that subset.
qnixhas left
wladmishas joined
ZashFWIW while implementing extended MAM in Prosody I cheated and just put the after-id in the same slot in the internal API as the RSM after
ZashBut, implementation detail..
jonas’shush!
ZashOnly matters for <count> I think, which should not be affected by RSM parameters, only MAM ones
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedooh, I need to read RSM again I think then. Are you saying that 'after' is an int, not an ID?
jonas’SamWhited, no, after is an opaque string
jonas’you mustn’t interpret it (on the client side anyway)
SamWhitedI still have zero concept of what you mean by 'offset' and 'where' then
ZashSamWhited: I think we were talking abstract concepts, not exact SQL mapping
jonas’I was for sure
ZashOFFSET in SQL is an int, yes. But conceptually you SELECT a range, and then shift the starting point with OFFSET
jonas’no, you select a *subset of records*
jonas’not necessarily a range (which is thought of to be regular or consecutive even)
Zash/correct s/range/subset/
ZashI must have thought of a SELECT with only after-id
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
nycohas left
MattJStep 1 is to run the query and get the results, step 2 is to return the correct page. If you use <after> in RSM with an id that isn't in the result set you'll get an item-not-found: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html#notfound
MattJ(previous versions of 313 indicated otherwise, but this was fixed in one of the later revisions)
lskdjfhas joined
Wojtekhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
nycohas joined
qnixhas joined
SamWhitedOkay, no longer on a phone and coffee has been aquired, I was hoping that would help, but I still don't see how that's different from after-id. I mean, they both contain "after" in the name and take an ID, they both return an error if the ID doesn't exist.
SamWhitedGoing back to read the RSM description of "after" now.
KevIt’s not a mechanical objection, AFAICT Sam, but a case of dogma not wanting to use RSM for this. Obviously it worked mechanically using RSM, because that was deployed and working.
SamWhitedKev: I guess that's what I don't get then, it says "use RSM" but then also says "Also here's more form fields that appear the same"
SamWhitedIs it just that RSM requires max (I think?) and this is just "after but without requiring a limit"?
SamWhitedOr is it that RSM doesn't specify what the ID is and it might be an ID local to the result set and not the actual stanza ID like after-id takes? Although in that case I'd question why it didn't just say "use RSM, and use the stanza ID"
ZashIsn't that exactly what MAM says?
qnixhas left
ZashYou use RSM, IDs are stanza-ids.
SamWhitedOkay, then it definitely seems like exactly the same thing in two places in the sstanza to me
SamWhitedMaybe someone can provide a SQL query that includes <after> and after-id how they would translate?
ZashAgain, conceptually, after-id would map to `WHERE item_id > after-id` and RSM after would map to `OFFSET after-first.id` or something (excuse the math)
SamWhitedSo after-id is some sort of string comparison? I dont' get that from reading the XEP
SamWhitedNothing says that IDs have to be ordered as far as I can see
ZashYou're still taking this too literally
SamWhitedOkay, let's step back then, I don't understand what the difference between WHERE and OFFSET is in that query if it's not "one is doing a string comparison, one is saying 'give me rows that are after this row'"
ZashSo yeah in actual SQL it'd be more like `WHERE _internal_id > (SELECT _internal_id WHERE id=$after_id}`
ZashUnless you actually do have ordered IDs
SamWhitedThat seems *exactly* the same as offset then
ZashBut we can't count on that, it's an implementation detail
ZashIt's not
ZashYou could implement it either way, but it's not the same, conceptually.
SamWhitedI guess I don't see how. Or if they are the same but just "different conceptually" why bother having both?
wladmishas left
SamWhitedLet me try this: would I ever actually *use* both in a MAM query?
ZashYou could also implement it by not having any limit, collect *all* the results and then throw away items until you go past the RSM after id
ZashThen the MAM fields go in the SQL, RSM go into cropping the results afterwards
purplebeetroothas left
SamWhitedWhere does it say that?
ZashUsing both after-id and rsm after would be ponitless yes.
SamWhitedSo what is the point of having both if using them both would be pointless?
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
SamWhitedOr does it actually specify how I should implement it somewhere?
ZashIt's written a bit up where MattJ said so.
SamWhitedThat's just an error that gets returned?
Zash> Step 1 is to run the query and get the results, step 2 is to return the correct page.
ZashThat part
SamWhitedWhere does the XEP say that though?
SamWhitedAnd why would it force an implementation detail like that on me?
SamWhitedEg. wouldn't I just have a single concept of "give me stuff after this ID" and then if I wanted to just directly query for that vs. query for everything, cache those results, and return subsets of them as more queries come in entirely my decision and I wouldn't need two afters to indicate either thing?
wladmishas joined
MattJStep 1: you want to query the archive between two ids
Step 2: You formulate the query using after-id and before-id
Step 3: You send the query to the server
Step 4: The server returns the results, but there are many, so it returns the first page of 20 stanzas
Step 5: You make a second request with the same query parameters, but specify <after>last-id-in-the-page</after> in your RSM payload
MattJYou *could* just update after-id in the query parameters, you'll get the same messages
SamWhitedWhy not just make the query specifying <after> to start with, is what I'm asking?
edhelas"how to mimic SQL requests on top of a protocol where the server is actually doing SQL requests behind"
MattJafter-id didn't always exist, and it has different semantics (e.g. you can't specify before+after in RSM)
MattJBut yes, they do overlap, but they are conceptually different
ZashIt matters more for before, since that implicitly makes it so you start at the end of the results and page backwards
SamWhitedI don't see why MAM couldn't just say "if before and after are in RSM it's a range in this spec", but okay, that's the first thing that's vaguely sounded like a real difference to me, thanks
MattJSo I recommend using each one for its intended purpose
SamWhited ahhh, okay, before meaning you go backwards makes sense, so it would need a different concept I guess. That's absolutely infuriating, but makes sense.
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedOkay, I dunno, I guess I still don't see why MAM couldn't just specify that, but I guess it's a tiny bit weird modifying RSM behavior just for one spec. This seems like a major failure of RSM though that we had to include another concept of the exact same thing, but also sort of use RSM but only sometimes, etc.
MattJI think RSM is pretty good at what it's designed for
MattJIt's not designed for querying
SamWhitedFair enough; seems like it just shouldn't be used in MAM at all then.
MattJand the alternative would be duplicating all the paging syntax and semantics into MAM
ti_gj06has left
ti_gj06has joined
purplebeetroothas joined
SamWhitedMaybe I'm really the only one who's confused by this, but that would seem to be better. If RSM just doesn't work for what MAM's trying to do, shoehorning it in and duplicating some of its concepts just seems confusing to me.
MattJIt does work
MattJRSM is not for querying, MAM is not for paging
MattJI really don't see the problem :)
MattJUnless you choose to confuse the two
SamWhitedThat seems like a distinction without a difference to me in this particular case.
MattJIf you choose to treat them as the same thing, then you're inviting confusion in edge cases
SamWhitedI dunno, maybe I'm just being obtuse since no one else seems to have a problem with this, but saying "there's after and there's after, they do the same thing but one of them is for querying initially and one is for subsequent queries to get pages later" just seems insane
MattJI don't see a problem with "here is a query", and "here is how you access further pages of the same query"
SamWhitedBut again, I seem to be the only one confused by this so I guess I'm wrong 🤷\
MattJYou decide what results you are interested in, and then you page through until you're done
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedAnd the spec says *none* of this as far as I can tell. There was one throw away comment about how after/before behavior wasn't defined in RSM, that's it I think
SamWhitedThe spec just leaves you wondering why after-id and after aren't the same thing.
MattJSays none of what exactly?
MattJ"A client or server will typically want to limit the number of results transmitted at a time, thereby breaking the result stream into smaller 'pages'. For this purpose a server MUST support Result Set Management (XEP-0059) [4] and MUST support the paging mechanism defined therein."
MattJThat's the section that introduces RSM
SamWhitedDoesn't say that RSM is for querying after the first query and after-id is for the first query or whwhatever
MattJBecause that's not the case
SamWhitedIt just introduces two concepts, after and after-id that at first glance appear identical.
SamWhitedI swear that's literally what you just said, no?
MattJRSM is not designed for querying
MattJYes, you can get the same result set two different ways (after-id or using RSM) in specific query types
MattJBut you're designing an API here
pasdesushihas joined
MattJSo this should be of benefit to you, you need to get it right
Zashgrep vs more ?
SamWhited"filtering vs. querying" then. The point is that the spec just says "you can use RSM, it has after, there is also after-id in the form" (not an actual quote, obviously).
MattJ1. choose the results you are interested in 2. select the page
MattJIn an API these things should be 100% different
MattJFor some queries (where you only care about ids), sure, you could do everything with RSM
MattJFor anything more complex, they are not the same thing
SamWhitedI'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, because I honestly can't tell how it applies to after-id vs. after. But when zash says "grep vs more" or MattJ says "1. choose the results you are interested in 2. select the page", does it matter that I'm doing that behind thes scenes? I'm not sure how to phrase this, but that just sounds like an implementation detail that doesn't matter.
SamWhitedI would probably *never* do that in an implementation. I would always just make small queries, return results. Those results include info for making the next query. I would never actually pull out the entire archive within a range and then allow smaller queries to be filtered on that.
SamWhitedI can't tell if it actually matters for this discussion though.
MattJJust make your API nice, I don't care what mechanics you use if it works and is a nice API
MattJIf you do it wrong I just reserve the right to never look at the code :)
nycohas left
Half-Shothas left
uhoreghas left
Matthewhas left
Rixon 👁🗨has left
pasdesushihas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
Rixon 👁🗨has joined
uhoreghas joined
SamWhitedI *think* my API is nice, but as far as I can tell no matter how complex the query you could set the ID in after or after-id *unless* you need a window and want to set after/before. So the XMPP API still seems really weird to me.
SamWhited(assuming you're using an ID and want stuff after it at all, I mean, obviously you could also set neither for the initial query)
SamWhitedSo I can do what you say and use after-id the first time and <after> afterwards, it just seems worth clarifying in the XEP that you should always do that.
MattJYou don't just use after-id the first time, you can include it every time
SamWhitedOh crap, okay, now I'm back to square one and have no idea what you're talking about or why I'd do that.
MattJOk, if we're back to square one then I have better things to do :)
MattJJust implement it, I'm sure you'll manage
SamWhitedMaybe it really is just me in which case fair enough, but I really don't see how this distinction isn't confusing and doesn't need to be clarified in the XEP.
nycohas joined
MattJAlso consider whether you want to make RSM reusable in your codebase
MattJBecause it sounds like you're not even considering that
SamWhitedRSM is already resuable in the codebase.
MattJBut you don't want to reuse it for some reason, even though MAM explicitly allows it
MattJYou would rather recalculate MAM query parameters instead of just tacking on the RSM page request
SamWhitedI mean, I want to reuse it if it fits, but it sounds like MAM is having to partially re-invent it which is just confusing.
MattJI don't care what you do, but anything else seems more work
MattJMAM is not partially reinventing it because RSM does *not* do querying
MattJIf you read the XEP that's pretty clear
SamWhitedI don't have to recalculate anything, it sounds like *exactly* the same thing to me which is what I still don't get. You make a query, get results back. You make another query and change <after> (or after-id) to the last one you got from the previous query.
Viktorhas left
MattJThe RSM XEP, that is
SamWhitedMAM you have to make a query. RSM picks the page you get. I get that, I just don't see how it changes that after and after-id are the same thing.
MattJIf you start with a time range query you're not just changing after-id, you're adding it. And if you want the last page first, what are you going to do then?
MattJYes, I 100% agree that in some cases you can achieve the same query in two different ways
MattJI 100% don't think that this is something that needs to take up an afternoon of discussion
MattJIf your API has the concept of a query, and the concept of a page, they map perfectly to MAM and to RSM
SamWhited> If you start with a time range query you're not just changing after-id, you're adding it.
Sure, but that would be the exact same thing still if you use after-id or <after>, right? Yes, you can also make other queries, I don't see how that changes anything.
>
> And if you want the last page first, what are you going to do then?
You make the query using <before/> just like both MAM and RSM say to do, it has nothing to do with after/after-id being duplicated?
MattJif you want to conflate the two, feel free to do that
eevvoorhas left
qnixhas joined
SamWhitedOkay, I dunno, I don't think I'm conflating anything and I don't see why that distinction should even exist, which is what's concerning me, but I'll go re-read the relavant sections of MAM again and see if I can find anthing that clarifies this that I might have forgotten. Thanks for your help.
SamWhitedThis is just driving me *nuts* because I don't understand the miscommunication. I'm not sure if I'm asking something wrong or there's some assumption others have that I don't, or what. It literally seems like we just have two identical things in the XEP and the only reason is that *technically* there is some slightly semantic difference in the words we use to describe them but no practical difference.
ZashI couldn't consume coffee fast enough to keep up.
Andrzejhas left
ti_gj06has left
SamWhitedOkay, sorry, last thing just to make sure I'm being absolutely clear about what's confusing me with a practical example, then I'll just give up and go re-read MAM again:
SamWhitedIs there any difference in results that should be returned for the following two queries: https://gist.github.com/SamWhited/bdc7b2465a5f91d92bc881a3367d97d3
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
ZashSamWhited: Same messages, but they might differ on <rsm:count>
Half-Shothas left
uhoreghas left
Matthewhas left
Rixon 👁🗨has left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
Rixon 👁🗨has joined
uhoreghas joined
nycohas left
wladmishas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
SamWhitedahhhh, okay, that's the difference, I understand now I think.
goffihas left
Andrzejhas joined
SamWhitedThere is actually a thing that would change, not just some vague semantic difference in wording but in practice they're identical.
wladmishas left
SamWhitedI am not sure what I should have asked to get at that sooner, but maybe the lesson is "always include examples".
ZashSince that count is the count of the whole set, if no RSM or limits were involved. But it's also not guaranteed to be exact.
MattJor present
ZashExamples good.
SamWhitedSure, I definitely wouldn't include that (it's very expensive in postgres without lots of hackery), but at least there is a real practical difference between the two concepts now.
MattJThere already was (besides the few offered earlier)
ZashI think in Prosody we only include it if you also ask for rsm:max=0
MattJAnyway, back to work
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedGoing back I don't see how I would have gotten there from any of the previous replies, they all seem to sound like "sure, they're identical, but we can use different words to describe them"
SamWhitedI'm sure I was jus tasking something weird though and not making the confusion clear.
SamWhited(ignoring the before/after thing, that one I agree is vaguely a reason, it just also seems like it would have been easy enough to do in MAM)
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
nycohas joined
L29Ahhas left
wladmishas joined
L29Ahhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
KevIt is possible that not using RSM at all would be sensible. It would certainly be possible.
wladmishas left
KevIt seemed like a good idea at the time, though.
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedTo be clear, I am not advocating for a specific solution. I wasn't even sure there was a problem. I was just trying to understand why both after/after-id existed (or, with the reason I was given, why it actually matters). I think "count would be different" is the reason.
wladmishas left
nycohas left
raghavgururajanhas left
jcbrandhas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
millesimushas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Andrzejhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
millesimushas joined
Andrzejhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
goffihas joined
wladmishas left
nycohas joined
paulhas left
wladmishas joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas left
ti_gj06has joined
Andrzejhas left
qnixhas joined
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
Lancehas joined
qnixhas left
qnixhas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
qnixhas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
paulhas joined
wladmishas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
eevvoorhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
SamWhitedMattJ: are there any pending TODOs on MAM? Would you mind if the editor did another LC?
MattJNothing pending, no
SamWhitedWould you mind if a LC happened then? There is one "FIXME" in the text that I can propose an editorial change for after work, but otherwise I'd like to see it advance if possible.
SamWhited(unless of course you'd prefer to do it as the author, I just thought I'd offer)
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
MattJNope, go for it
SamWhitedThanks
SamWhited/cc whomever the editor is these days. jonas’ maybe?
MattJThe last revision was intended to be the last revision, I just wanted to wait a while for feedback
MattJIt's been a while, so I'm happy with moving it on now
KevMaybe I should actually read the latest version :D
jonas’SamWhited, ACK, maybe ask for LC together with your PR is easiest✎
SamWhitedMattJ: that's sort of what I was thinking. Given how small and mostly-inactive this community is, I figure just doing a LC is probably the best way to actually get people to look at it :)
jonas’SamWhited, ACK, maybe ask for LC together with your PR that should be easiest ✏
jonas’Kev, well, that’s what the LC is for :)
MattJI also gave plenty of opportunity for feedback before submitting the revision too, so another argument for moving ahead
SamWhitedWill do.
jonas’SamWhited, thanks!
Kevjonas’: Well, kinda. I’m Author too ;)
ZashHaha
arcxihas left
jonas’Kev, are you sure? ;)
arcxihas joined
Kev:(
ti_gj06has left
qnixhas joined
jcbrandhas joined
wladmishas left
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
wladmishas joined
ti_gj06has joined
fuanahas joined
archas joined
arcMeeting time?
jonas’arc, wrong day of week?
jonas’or did board reschedule?
arcWe rescheduled
MattJWait what
jonas’oh, was that not announced on board@?
jonas’oh, in the minutes
fuanahas left
wladmishas left
MattJI guess I should have read those more thorougly
MattJIt's very unlikely I'll be able to attend
arcI would happily be wrong on this
ralphmWe could skip though, since we're only half a week on
arcI'm cool with that
ralphmMattJ, does the new slot work in general?
arcI just got out of the ER with extremely high blood pressure
jonas’ralphm,
MR 20201126T15:04:59Z 000 <MattJ> I generally have a hard cut-off at 1700Z in winter, 1600Z in summer
mathijshas left
jonas’followed-up by:
MR 20201126T15:07:53Z 000 <MattJ> If we must, I can probably do that on a Thursday or Friday, at least during the winter
millesimushas left
ralphmSorry my exocortex didn't raise that
wladmishas left
millesimushas joined
ralphmnot banging the gavel for the Board Meeting => +1W
pasdesushihas joined
wladmishas joined
mathijshas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
fuanahas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
mimi89999has left
wladmishas left
mimi89999has joined
MattJI can't do this time on any Wednesday and sensibly participate. My wife is working and I look after the children 😕
andrey.ghas joined
Andrzejhas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
ti_gj06has left
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
ralphmOk. Back to the drawing board then
wladmishas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
Steve Killehas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
Steve Killehas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
qnixhas left
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
goffihas left
neshtaxmpphas left
pasdesushihas left
xeckshas left
pasdesushihas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
wladmishas left
pasdesushihas left
wladmishas joined
xeckshas joined
werdanhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
pasdesushihas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
pasdesushihas left
qnixhas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
mukt2has joined
fuanahas left
mukt2has left
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
qnixhas left
Viktorhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Yagizahas left
fuanahas joined
x51has left
raghavgururajanhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
x51has joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
fuanahas left
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
ti_gj06has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
emusHave you tried using those appointment finding polls?
ti_gj06has joined
DebXWoodyOpenPGP for XMPP - Context IM
Is there a valid use case where a user has two OpenPGP keys which both are associated with one XMPP account?
qnixhas joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
qnixhas left
ti_gj06has left
x51has left
x51has joined
wladmishas left
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
arcxihas left
lovetox_has joined
lovetox_has left
x51has left
x51has joined
x51has left
x51has joined
arcxihas joined
Mikaelahas left
ti_gj06has joined
x51has left
Andrzejhas left
werdanhas left
x51has joined
werdanhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
arcxihas left
x51has left
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
vanitasvitaeI mean, the spec does not forbid it
vanitasvitaeDebXWoody ^
vanitasvitaeSo why noz
qnixhas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
vanitasvitaeI think thats partly why there is the metadata node with public key list: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0373.html#announcing-pubkey-list
Mikaelahas joined
DebXWoody(on one device ). To have more keys in general (multi device) yes. But about more than one key in one local keyring.
lovetox_has joined
arcxihas joined
vanitasvitaeI think there is no point in that. Then again I see no interop-concerns if a device has two secret keys. There might be a use-case for that as well (different keys presented to different contacts, like a work-key and a free-time key?)
vanitasvitaeBut other devices would simply see two keys as if they would belong to different devices as there is no binding between devices and keys
vanitasvitaeSo if your client wants to allow two secret keys on a device, I see no issues with that 😀
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
fuanahas joined
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
goffihas joined
DebXWoodyI won't 😆 The user has to choose which key he will use to sign a message. I was thinking to show an error, but I don't know of there may some use cases.
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
andrey.ghas left
x51has joined
arcxihas left
pasdesushihas left
Andrzejhas joined
arcxihas joined
vanitasvitaeif I'd implement OX, I'd either generate a key for the user, or if the user can provide their own keys, I'd ask them for the key-ID they want to use 🙂
fuanahas left
vanitasvitaebtw. DebXWoody are you subscribed to standards@?
vanitasvitaeI just dropped a mail asking for possible dates for a regular OX meeting 😉