XSF Discussion - 2022-06-23

  1. Tobias

    when a client publishes something to a pubsub node, is the node automatically created if it does not exist?

  2. MattJ


  3. MattJ

    It's an optional feature, but it's required for PEP

  4. MattJ


  5. MattJ

    That's the feature

  6. MattJ

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html#publish - that's where it's required for PEP

  7. Tobias


  8. Zash

    Hm, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802#section-6.1 is weird with tls-unique being obsolete-ish

  9. moparisthebest

    > Servers MUST implement the "tls-unique" [RFC5929] channel binding type, if they implement any channel binding. that's weird wording in general

  10. Guus

    I might have asked this before, but are there any re-usable BOSH-related load test implementations available anywhere?

  11. Sam

    Guus: I'm not sure if they were ever open sourced or still exist, but HipChat had some. You might try digging around in Atlassians old archived repos on GitHub.

  12. moparisthebest

    are there non-BOSH-related load test implementations?

  13. Kev

    Multiple, but it depends what it is you want to load test.

  14. Guus

    I only want to do some smoke-testing, with a little bit more than one client.

  15. Guus

    Sam, any suggestions for https://github.com/orgs/atlassian/repositories?q=&type=all&language=&sort= ?

  16. Guus

    none of these give relevant results: bosh bind load xmpp jabber

  17. Sam

    I dunno, I don't even remember what they were written in, sorry. Probably didn't end up open sourced.

  18. Guus

    np, thanks

  19. moparisthebest

    what I was getting at is if there are non-BOSH load testers, and you could find an xmpp->bosh proxy, you could run them through that

  20. moparisthebest

    I know the opposite direction exists but unsure about that direction

  21. MattJ

    Guus, Tsung used to be a popular choice

  22. Guus

    MattJ, does that do BOSH?

  23. MattJ

    It does HTTP and it does XMPP, I can't remember if it does BOSH specifically

  24. Guus

    stackoverflow says yes

  25. Guus

    I hadn't considered. THanks

  26. MattJ

    iirc it's extensible (but that may require erlang coding)

  27. moparisthebest

    hey says right here it supports BOSH http://tsung.erlang-projects.org/1/01/about/#xmpp-jabber

  28. moparisthebest

    and websockets, this might be fun to compare connection methods with

  29. Guus

    I obviously first looked at StackOverflow before the author's site.

  30. moparisthebest

    of course

  31. Guus

    there's bound to be a docker image for this...

  32. arc

    Will there be a board meeting today?

  33. Holger

    BTW https://github.com/processone/rtb is kind of a successor to Tsung, it tries harder to produce 'realistic' workloads, but it doesn't do BOSH/WebSocket.

  34. arc

    Is anyone else here for it?

  35. arc

    🙁 doesn't look like it

  36. moparisthebest

    why don't you ping them ?

  37. arc

    Ralphm: here?

  38. moparisthebest

    it's ralphm , some clients are picky with caps, some not

  39. Zash


  40. arc

    At this point it doesn't look like it. I need to get to work

  41. Zash

    If the chair doesn't show up for 15 minutes you're legally allowed to go to work

  42. arc

    Chair hasn't been to a meeting in more than a month. I'm already walking to work

  43. MattJ

    arc, I think we're all agreed about giving up on weekly meetings? (per email discussion)

  44. arc

    There needs to be a proposal and a vote

  45. Zash

    And minutes!

  46. arc

    And to go with that the calendar event needs to be removed

  47. arc

    Exactly. We are an American 501c3 with an international board. There are rules and auditing.

  48. arc

    Peter could go into more detail, but if the IRS investigates we need to have all our i's dotted and t's crossed. Until a official decision we still have weekly meetings every Thursday

  49. arc

    Of course there's no legal requirement for weekly meetings. We could have annual meetings, even.

  50. Zash

    As a Swede, I often wonder where all the real meeting bureaucracy is hiding. Where are the two meeting minutes checkers who double check and attest to the meeting minutes?!

  51. arc

    That is a problem yes

  52. arc

    But biggest, we as a board representing body corporate decided on weekly meetings. To change that we need an official decision under the current parameters.

  53. arc

    One of the things to discuss is that this change would move from every meeting being open and public, to every "meeting" being private behind closed doors, because the board list is only for board members.

  54. MattJ

    Everyone on board has now agreed to my proposal to switch to email to conduct business

  55. MattJ

    Except you, I think?

  56. MattJ

    If you have concerns, share them

  57. MattJ

    Probably via email is best :)

  58. MattJ

    I'm also open to hearing other proposals

  59. MattJ

    The only alternatives I see are 1) continue to fail to conduct any business because meetings don't happen, 2) dissolve the XSF

  60. MattJ

    Most organizations do not have weekly board meetings, I personally think that is a little excessive anyway

  61. MattJ

    What matters is whether we can get stuff done, not how many meetings we have. We can just as easily meet our obligations to the organization without using XMPP to conduct our discussions.

  62. MattJ

    I do agree about taking stuff private though - the vast majority of what we discuss can and should be public. We've agreed in the past that members@ would be a suitable venue.

  63. MattJ

    We might want to revisit that, e.g. a public read-only list (for non-board) that's separate

  64. singpolyma

    Just have a board@ muc that is only for business where only board gets voice. Open the meeting on the first, close on the 29th and snapshot log as minutes. Monthly meeting a month long!

  65. Guus

    I was just going to suggest that.

  66. Zash

    That has existed forever but I'm not sure anything has ever been said there

  67. Guus

    I by no means think that this is a better idea - but it might be middle ground between 'live chat' and 'email'.

  68. MattJ

    I don't want to speak for anyone else, but if the issue is scheduling time, email is nice because it acts as a to-do... I can organize threads, flag them, mark them as unread, etc. if I know they require some action from me. I feel like I could easily lose chat messages (I mean, it happens to me all the time)

  69. Guus

    perfectly reasonable

  70. Guus

    In unrelated news: Bosh with Tsung works.

  71. Guus

    thanks for that.

  72. MattJ


  73. Kev

    FWIW, as a person who complains when Board stuff happens in private, either of the above proposals (board@ MUC or a public board@ mailing list where most stuff happens) would keep me happy.

  74. pep.

    If I were a member I would also very much complain if stuff went even more private, as I did in the past already

  75. Kev

    I don't think anyone's suggesting making things more private - I was just pre-emptively *not* complaining about either of the suggestions :)

  76. moparisthebest

    I like the board@ muc better than email for dogfooding reasons but as long as you don't take it to discord or something I won't complain :D

  77. Zash

    We just need a XEP to solve the timezone issue

  78. Kev

    As an uninformed outsider, I don't think timezones are the issue with Board meeting at the moment.

  79. moparisthebest

    A muc handles messages from different timezones just as well as email

  80. Ellenor Malik

    we need a xep for mail over xmpp

  81. Ellenor Malik

    (not kidding)

  82. pep.

    I guess with emails at least there is some kind of rich markup (/s)

  83. moparisthebest

    no there isn't, only sickos write HTML emails

  84. pep.

    There's no standard whatsoever, not everyone accepts the same subset, but at least there's a wire format that isn't dependent on the input format :)

  85. singpolyma

    Ellenor Malik: what do you think we are currently lacking to get this use case?

  86. Ellenor Malik

    really nothing, actually

  87. Ellenor Malik

    > I wrote: > (not kidding) This was a lie.

  88. singpolyma


  89. singpolyma

    Certainly there's no client focussed on this use case. I think you need the old archiving xep to get good "mail folders" stuff also, at least if you want IMAP like sync. Of course nothing stops us from just using IMAP for that ;)

  90. Sam

    IIRC the IRS does require regular public board meetings (but not weekly). I think it's at least quarterly, but don't hold me to that number.