XSF Discussion - 2022-05-01

  1. flow

    I think MIX/MUC would not be the first pair of protocols I'd think of in this regard but they certainly fall into that category (if you ignore the fact that there are ~20 years between them). But it shows that its perfectly fine to continue working on the two protocols: we have some people who believe that MUC can and should be graduately improved to meet the requirements of our "modern" times. and some people saw a need for a build-from scratch architecture of a groupchat protocol. which is certainly worth trying and exploring

  2. emus

    And we actually have the option to run two paths of "features"

  3. raucao

    but without clear terminology, it's confusing for users. one should not have to learn protocol acronyms just to join a chat room. someone not using the easier, centralized platforms is already a lot to ask in the first place, and then not being able to join a room, for example, causes a bad experience which then get memorized as "xmpp bad/fussy"

  4. Toxi

    raucao right, but :)) they are so afraid of saying something wrong that they prefer to send only an icon. And just for a icon a day any centralized platform im does the job.

  5. mdosch

    I don't think users have to know acronyms. My family is using xmpp and doesn't know about xmpp, muc, mam, csi etc..

  6. mdosch

    I don't think users have to know acronyms. My family is using xmpp and they don't know about xmpp, muc, mam, csi etc..

  7. Toxi

    Of course not. But then we have a bigger problem. How do we replace them with simple words?

  8. mdosch

    Do you need to? Do endusers need to know about technical details of the protocol?

  9. flow

    raucao, that is, I believe, one idea of modernxmpp.org: to abstract the technical protocol terms with a more or less standardized terms for end-users

  10. mdosch

    Do WhatsApp users talk about funXMPP or people browsing the web know about https, TLS etc.?

  11. flow

    Toxi, ↑

  12. Toxi

    You know i am german, my english is bad, but i try to answer you. In the 50s we decided that everyone had to learn to read and write. Was that wrong? Why should people today remain informationally illiterate? Why shouldn't we demand a little?

  13. flow

    Because every little hurdle cuts your userbase in half and is simply unnecessary

  14. msavoritias

    The fact that we call it userbase shows a lot about how everything has gone wrong in the tech community imo

  15. raucao

    I was specifically replying to using MUC and MIX side by side

  16. raucao

    yes, something simpler like referring to MUC as "classic" and MIX as "modern" could help somewhat, but still makes it more confusing, and also needs at least the most popular client app UIs to adopt the terms consistently

  17. raucao


  18. raucao

    I'd love to hear good ideas for the service I run to adopt MIX while keeping the existing MUC channels intact

  19. raucao

    and without users being confused

  20. Andrzej

    raucao, it is possible to have MIX channels being accessed by MUC-only capable clients, so they could even be migrated to MIX as long as they would be accessible and usable with MUC

  21. flow

    exactly, users do not need to care about MIX vs MUC

  22. flow

    although, reaching this state requires a lot of effort

  23. raucao

    so I can do that right now with ejabberd or prosody for example? I didn't know that

  24. raucao

    a seamless migration would be perfect of course

  25. Ellenor Malik

    Let not Masto and Pleroma steal the term "fediverse" from diverse federated universes which started with SMTP.

  26. sebastian

    I think it is to late

  27. sebastian

    To be fair.... actually I never heard fediverse in email and xmpp context, before I heard this name/word with the rise of Mastodon 🤔 "Federated" or "Federation", yes, i knew that from the beginning. But also I only started really being seriously interested in xmpp in 2015 and Mastodon in 2018... So I don't consider myself an expert.

  28. mathieui

    Never heard it before mastodon either, tbh

  29. Ellenor Malik

    that is true

  30. mdosch

    I think those activitypub things just wanted a more fancy term than federated network.

  31. Ellenor Malik


  32. flow

    raucao, it is (proably) possible does not mean that it is implemented

  33. flow

    that's the "reaching this state requires a lot of effort" part

  34. Andrzej

    flow, MIX-MUC integration depends on the implementation of MIX which you use. I worked on one and I think it works ok, so it is implemented.

  35. flow

    Andrzej, but this is not an implemention for prosody nor ejabberd, right?

  36. Andrzej

    yes, but it exists

  37. flow

    Andrzej, would be sure nice to have a writeup with the lessons learned about this (assuming there are any)

  38. flow

    Andrzej, well, I never said that such an implementation does *not* exist :)

  39. raucao

    Andrzej: great! which one is it?

  40. Andrzej

    it is part of Tigase XMPP Server

  41. raucao

    > Andrzej, would be sure nice to have a writeup with the lessons learned about this (assuming there are any) yeah, that would be nice indeed!

  42. raucao

    cool, so I could test it on a different domain with tigase then, right?

  43. Andrzej

    lessons learned over 2 years ago...

  44. raucao

    does it include migration?

  45. raucao

    I.e. switching existing rooms?

  46. raucao

    > lessons learned over 2 years ago... Still valuable if nobody else implemented it since then

  47. Andrzej

    yes, you could test it. no, it supports just creation of MIX channels (using MIX protocol) but accessible then by anyone with MIX or MUC compatible client

  48. raucao

    cool, thanks

  49. raucao

    I'm wondering if we need an XEP for generic channel migration

  50. raucao

    also useful when you just want to switch providers

  51. raucao

    and could then solve that problem also

  52. raucao

    however, keeping existing chat domains is probably important for many

  53. Andrzej

    I do think that the best would be to migrate from MUC to MIX using the same provider as it would be optimized for storage used

  54. raucao


  55. Andrzej

    then it would just migrate data on the existing jids

  56. raucao

    Andrzej: so after having implemented it 2 years ago, would you recommend everyone implement it these days?

  57. Guus

    Andrzej: can you give a rough estimation of the amount of effort involved in your implementation?

  58. moparisthebest

    Mix still requires support on the server of the account joining right?

  59. moparisthebest

    Like if this was a mix channel my server would also need support?

  60. moparisthebest

    That alone makes it utterly useless, just deploy a muc bouncer on your server and all problems solved without mix?

  61. moparisthebest

    Biboumi but for muc

  62. bung


  63. bung

    I love Xmpp, but I don't use Linux. Is it a problem if I don't use Linux and like Xmpp?

  64. Guus

    bung: no.

  65. msavoritias

    bung: no why would it be? I dont use linux either :)

  66. bung

    Oh good :)

  67. moparisthebest

    I mean it's a problem but it's unrelated to XMPP >:)

  68. Holger

    Might just be a bit of a problem if you don't use Android and like XMPP 😜

  69. bung

    I like privacy

  70. bung

    But some programs dont support very well on the Linux

  71. bung

    But maybe i use other laptop

  72. bung

    No problem?

  73. Andrzej

    Guus, effort was medium to large as I was building it on a full PubSub component. If I would implement only necessary parts that would be a lot simpler as I could simplify permissions checking, etc. Adding just MUC to MIX was very simple and easy

  74. Andrzej

    raucao, I would still suggest implementing it as it has better experience on iOS (ususally offline devices) than MUC

  75. Andrzej

    moparisthebest, MIX can be used without support on your local server - only for push notifications you might get a better experience if support for MIX is on your server

  76. Andrzej

    our clients Siskin & Beagle can work with MIX with or without support on used server for MIX

  77. Link Mauve

    Andrzej, so what is the role of PAM nowadays?

  78. Link Mauve

    Are clients still encouraged to include MIX channels in the user’s roster?

  79. Link Mauve

    I haven’t played with this spec in so long…

  80. Andrzej

    PAM is useful for faster message sync and for sync of channels between clients

  81. Andrzej

    but MIX can work without it

  82. Link Mauve

    Ah, that’s quite a lot already. ^^

  83. Link Mauve

    Especially the latter, people get confused when they join a MUC on one client and it doesn’t appear immediately in their other clients.

  84. Andrzej

    that is why I prefer MIX over MUC

  85. Link Mauve

    With XEP-0402 we have that nowadays in MUC too.

  86. Andrzej

    Link Mauve, but we still do not have push notifications for offline users in MUC as there are no offline users in MUC AFAIR

  87. Andrzej

    but yes, MUC is "getting there"

  88. Link Mauve

    I think I saw some development towards that, but you would know better than me as I don’t follow iOS stuff closely.

  89. kinetik

    Can anyone recommend any reading material on XMPP? I'm really looking for high-level overview of the philosophy behind it and stuff like that, more than how to use libraries and whatnot.

  90. Daniel

    kinetik: have you read the rfc?

  91. kinetik

    No, is that a good place to start?

  92. msavoritias


  93. Daniel

    It's certainly not a bad place to start

  94. Link Mauve

    kinetik, perhaps this page? https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview/

  95. kinetik

    Thanks, Link Mauve, I see that page has links to the RFCs as well

  96. emus

    btw: https://xmpp.org/rfcs/