XSF Discussion - 2021-05-27

why do people do any of the stupid things people do? one of the unsolved mysteries of the universe I guess

cause they don't care

Where do I find articles about XMPP? ✏

https://xmpp.org/category/newsletter.html is a good place to start

and https://planet.jabber.org/

XMPP is the name for the streaming XML protocol that emerged from the Jabber open source community in 1999. When that community submitted the protocol to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in 2002, it chose to use the name “XMPP” instead of “Jabber” to eliminate the possibility of confusion with the open source community and the commercial Jabber.com company (since acquired by Cisco Systems, Inc.) What did mean, (since acquired by Cisco Systems, Inc.)?

Is Jabber another company?

şişio: jabber.com is part of Cisco, yes. and Jabber(tm) is a Cisco trademark

that makes proprietary xmpp systems

XMPP=CİSCO?

No

Many years ago there was a company called Jabber Inc.

They were bought by Cisco.

That's why Cisco owns the Jabber trademark.

XMPP is the name for the protocol that was selected during IETF standardization.

So right now jabber and xmpp are the same thing

XMPP isn't owned by any company

Good :)

See also https://web.archive.org/web/20130416095113/https://stpeter.im/journal/1270.html

You can think of it as "Jabber" being like "email" and "XMPP" being like "SMTP" or "IMAP"

Where does cisco, xmpp exist now

except if google had a trademark on the word "email"

XMPP doesn't own it, that's good

It just says his name?

So what are they doing?

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/unified-communications/jabber/index.html

Don't they have a say because they bought jabber?

Over what? XMPP? No more than you

> Over what? XMPP? No more than you Yes XMPP

They have a say over the use of the "Jabber" trademark.

I don't know what they got.

> They have a say over the use of the "Jabber" trademark. And xmpp?

If they want to have a say in the development of XMPP and XEPs they can come here or join the mailing lists like anyone else.

So they're the only legally impp owners.

But they can't turn it off.

Not sure what you mean

Did Cisco participate in xmpp development at any time?

Yes.

Legal owner cisco

But they can't shut down XMPP.

cisco has no control over XMPP the word or protocol

mdosch: 6120 et al. were all published while Peter was working for Cisco, for example.

they do over "jabber" the word though, so in my opinion we should never use it to refer to XMPP

Ah, stpeter was working for Cisco?

> MattJ > See also https://web.archive.org/web/20130416095113/https://stpeter.im/journal/1270.html

Bunch of people were working for Cisco at some time or other.

> cisco has no control over XMPP the word or protocol 😀

Cisco have also put us up for the XMPP Summit for a number of years, in which they’ve often participated. ✏

Which is nice

XMPP really good. I don't need to look for another messenger.

I try Session and Signal 😀🤷‍♂️

Yes, Cisco has been real nice for as long as I can remember, for the org part (I wish cisco jabber was a bit more standard, though :D)

> I try Session and Signal 😀🤷‍♂️ But Signal is broken and Session not full open source

XMPP is best for me

I don't think you'll have to convince anyone *here*

> I don't think you'll have to convince anyone *here* Yes!

If you are happy than that is good 🙂

QUIC standardization crew seems to be getting tired https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4921

Time to submit a PR that replaces the whole thing with "Let's just go back to HTTP/1.1"

moparisthebest: I am not sure if they are tired of Markdown or the IETF process, TBH :-D

ralphm, ha yea, well they are tired of *something* :)

In any case, I am still excited about the potential of QUIC, beyond just HTTP

same, I'm already doing xmpp over it with https://github.com/moparisthebest/xmpp-proxy (todo: specs :) )

moparisthebest, lol wtf

Zash, probably for the best tbh

> QUIC standardization crew seems to be getting tired https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4921 Reminds me of https://m.xkcd.com/1296/

can't wait for "QUIC over HTTP" RFC

Meeting time?

Ralphm? Dwd? Mattj?

Here

Well we have quorum then. Do we have an agenda with anything pressing?

Nothing from me

There are obviously some ongoing task items

CoC?

Yes

there was yet another (small) instance where a set of rules (however you like to call them) for operators@ (the MUC) would’ve been useful.

Any progress on that?

Especially given all the chaos happening on freenode..

Awaiting an update from dwd I think

Hiya. Penultimate day at work, so I'm barelling through stuff. I'll spend some time over the weekend on this.

Sounds good

If you need any assistance let us know

Okay so it sounds like we don't really have anything to meet about today. Next week then?

Works for me

finally cisco only official own, nothing else

Protocol is free

Yes, the protocol is free

What's Cisco doing, just helping?

actively hurting by making "Cisco Jabber" such a shitty project I think :)

Hosting the Summit is nice tho.

> actively hurting by making "Cisco Jabber" such a shitty project I think :) İs Cisco Jabber is different?

yes

But XMPP is good

Is cisco using their own XEP or using xmpp's?

tutenote, the answer is probably "yes"

meaning that they may do the same as e.g. process one (and others) does: using some XSF XEPs and some custom extensions ✏

Is there anything I should be worried about with Cisco?

I'll open a server accordingly

Worried about what? Using the "Jabber" term? Afaik the XSF can grant you permission to use it.

> Worried about what? Using the "Jabber" term? Afaik the XSF can grant you permission to use it. In terms of security

I guess nothing changes with Cisco or any other name.

Right?

I don't get what you mean.

A concern for safety

About Cisco? I wouldn't worry

Is there anything in Cisco that destroys security?

No?

Ok.

I don't know.

> I don't know. That it's a security breach or not?

Where?

Xmpp, by Cisco

I don't understand.

Zash: Sorry... Can Cisco do something bad to XMPP? ✏

No

They don't have control over the protocol and/or implementations.

👍🤐

worst that could happen is that something™ happens to the trademark and a bunch of stuff needs to change names

Nothing security related, not anymore than you or I.

> worst that could happen is that something™ happens to the trademark and a bunch of stuff needs to change names Really good

Thanks

How is going with XMPP? Is future looking bright?

Absolutely!

> homebeach escribió: > How is going with XMPP? Is future looking bright? What means future bright for you? I have written a commentary which might goes into this direction: https://xmpp.org/2021/01/instant-messaging-its-not-about-the-app/