Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes:

[00:27:58] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[00:30:22] * jcea left the chat.
[01:15:45] * tofu left the chat.
[01:42:58] * scippio left the chat.
[02:55:56] * novikov joined the chat.
[03:29:24] * novikov left the chat.
[03:57:20] * harrykar left the chat.
[05:09:03] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[05:37:21] * Fabian left the chat.
[05:57:38] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[06:00:22] * nabatt joined the chat.
[06:00:26] * Fabian joined the chat.
[06:04:16] * harrykar joined the chat.
[06:14:31] * niekie left the chat.
[06:24:55] * marseille joined the chat.
[06:33:53] * Ludovic left the chat.
[06:42:02] * mlundblad joined the chat.
[06:48:42] * Alex joined the chat.
[06:49:57] * thkoch2001 joined the chat.
[07:00:25] * jonas joined the chat.
[07:03:05] * Fabian left the chat.
[07:07:16] * Fabian joined the chat.
[07:07:37] * thkoch2001 left the chat.
[07:15:08] * marseille left the chat.
[07:17:39] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[07:21:59] * mlundblad left the chat.
[07:31:46] * thkoch2001 joined the chat.
[07:41:18] * teo left the chat.
[07:41:18] * teo joined the chat.
[07:41:23] * nabatt left the chat.
[07:41:25] * nabatt joined the chat.
[08:11:33] * guus joined the chat.
[08:19:51] * harrykar left the chat.
[08:20:23] * harrykar joined the chat.
[08:35:35] * thkoch2001 left the chat.
[08:47:00] * teo left the chat.
[08:47:07] * teo joined the chat.
[09:39:27] * scippio joined the chat.
[09:49:30] * Treebilou left the chat.
[09:53:30] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[09:57:26] * Alex left the chat.
[10:28:47] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:31:46] * jcea joined the chat.
[10:37:26] * scippio left the chat.
[10:37:51] * scippio joined the chat.
[10:38:45] * wjt joined the chat.
[10:38:57] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:40:09] <wjt> hmm, is <show>chat</show> actually defined by anything, or is just a convention?
[10:40:21] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:40:45] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:41:09] <wjt> ah, it is in 3921. i missed it on my first scan
[10:46:02] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:53:43] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:53:46] * marseille joined the chat.
[10:58:14] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:59:09] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:11:22] * MattJ joined the chat.
[11:32:06] * rtreffer left the chat.
[11:38:55] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[11:43:31] * marseille left the chat.
[11:49:11] * waqas joined the chat.
[12:02:27] * stpeter joined the chat.
[12:03:13] * naw joined the chat.
[13:16:08] * teo left the chat.
[13:48:46] * nabatt left the chat.
[13:49:57] * Zash joined the chat.
[13:50:45] <louiz’> xmpp.org is down :o
[13:51:09] <MattJ> Yes
[13:51:13] <Kev> No.
[13:51:17] <Kev> Well, http://xmpp.org isn't.
[13:51:20] <Kev> xmpp:xmpp.org is.
[13:51:51] <MattJ> Sure, well I'm sure louiz’ isn't talking about the site :)
[13:51:53] <Zash> Nooo, the uptime!
[13:52:47] <louiz’> I was talking about the website
[13:53:04] <Kev> The website is, largely, up.
[13:53:12] <waqas> I see it up. It's without wordpress, but I don't mind that.
[13:53:20] <waqas> It's even faster that way ^^
[13:53:21] <louiz’> Kev, I can’t access it :/
[13:53:22] <Kev> Although it's possible you've got DNS cached for the server that's down.
[13:53:30] <louiz’> maybe
[13:56:39] * Fabian left the chat.
[14:01:45] * Fabian joined the chat.
[14:17:09] * naw left the chat.
[14:25:55] * nabatt joined the chat.
[14:29:48] * tofu joined the chat.
[14:30:57] * louiz’ left the chat.
[14:31:03] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[14:37:04] * waqas left the chat.
[14:42:46] * nabatt left the chat.
[14:43:01] * nabatt joined the chat.
[14:54:02] * guus left the chat.
[14:58:25] * Fabian left the chat.
[15:02:49] * stpeter left the chat.
[15:04:18] * stpeter joined the chat.
[15:10:45] * tofu left the chat.
[15:14:47] * bartender left the chat.
[15:17:39] * bartender joined the chat.
[15:21:45] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[15:23:00] * Fabian joined the chat.
[15:23:48] * Fabian left the chat.
[15:23:52] * Fabian joined the chat.
[15:24:20] * naw joined the chat.
[15:24:42] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[15:27:06] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[15:28:46] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[15:30:31] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[15:37:20] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[15:37:34] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[15:40:33] * rtreffer joined the chat.
[15:40:38] * jonas left the chat.
[16:07:42] * Fabian left the chat.
[16:13:04] * marseille joined the chat.
[16:17:32] * nabatt left the chat.
[16:23:16] * tofu joined the chat.
[16:24:28] * stpeter_ joined the chat.
[16:26:24] * stpeter_ left the chat.
[16:26:54] * stpeter_ joined the chat.
[16:30:20] * marseille left the chat.
[16:30:21] * marseille joined the chat.
[16:30:42] * marseille left the chat.
[16:32:03] * stpeter left the chat.
[17:00:03] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[17:15:37] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[17:15:38] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[17:16:01] * hawke joined the chat.
[17:17:14] * hawke left the chat.
[17:22:52] * hawke joined the chat.
[17:31:53] * pombreda joined the chat.
[17:36:32] * rtreffer left the chat.
[17:38:11] * Fabian joined the chat.
[17:38:53] * wjt left the chat.
[17:39:03] * pombreda left the chat.
[17:44:28] * rtreffer joined the chat.
[18:01:12] * teo joined the chat.
[18:07:42] * nikita_ joined the chat.
[18:14:38] * Yagiza joined the chat.
[18:14:50] <Yagiza> Hello!
[18:15:11] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[18:15:42] <Yagiza> Any1 here?
[18:15:59] <Yagiza> I'd like to discuss an idea.
[18:16:11] <Yagiza> An idea of a new XEP
[18:17:44] <Yagiza> It seems no1 here right now...
[18:17:49] <Yagiza> Too bad...
[18:19:57] <deryni> I'd send an email to the mailing list if you don't just want to say the idea here and wait.
[18:21:36] <Yagiza> Before sending an e-mail to the list, I just wanted to know the first opinion about it.
[18:21:59] <Yagiza> Maybe it do not deserve to be posted to the list.
[18:22:23] <Yagiza> Just not worth it
[18:26:55] <deryni> Then just explain the idea and wait.
[18:27:46] * marseille joined the chat.
[18:29:00] <Yagiza> ok
[18:29:11] <Yagiza> The idea is simple:
[18:30:20] <Yagiza> We add a new feature to the server.
[18:30:55] <Yagiza> Let's call it "Presnence filtering"
[18:33:13] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[18:34:10] <Yagiza> When a contact, which belons to the server receives a <presence /> stanza, which contains an <x /> element with a namespace, which contact didn't advertise to be supported, it just removed from the stanze.
[18:34:55] <Yagiza> Of course, the server should advertise it supports the feature and it shoud be configurable.
[18:37:51] <deryni> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0273.html ?
[18:38:07] <stpeter_> deryni: that's what I told him :)
[18:38:21] <deryni> Though sift looks like it is all-or-nothing for a stanza.
[18:39:44] <stpeter_> it's not finished yet, either
[18:40:49] * harrykar left the chat.
[18:43:13] <Yagiza> Anyway, sift seems to heavy and useless in most cases
[18:43:37] <Yagiza> The idea of this XEP is somewhat else:
[18:44:12] <Yagiza> 1. <presence /> stanzas consumes a lot of traffic.
[18:45:29] <Yagiza> 2. <message /> and <iq /> stanzas are always personal, so the sending instance can filter them itself, not sending to the instances, which do not support them.
[18:47:49] <Yagiza> 3. Opposite to them <presence /> stanzas are often sent to all instances, which subscribed to presence. So, there is no way to filter them and send only elements, which recipient supports.
[18:48:58] <Yagiza> 4. In the most cases such elements are <x /> elements and they often contain hash values which do not effectively compressed.
[18:49:06] <deryni> I'm failing to see how your xep would differ substantially from a payload rule in sift?
[18:50:48] <Yagiza> The main idea is that client do not have to do anything.
[18:51:18] <Yagiza> The server will just filter elements which client didn't advertise to be supported.
[18:51:25] <deryni> Advertise how? Caps?
[18:51:35] <deryni> And what if a client doesn't want that?
[18:51:36] <Yagiza> Yes
[18:52:05] <Yagiza> In that case client may configure server to switch the feature off.
[18:52:24] <Yagiza> But in the most cases we don't need it.
[18:52:26] <stpeter_> the client will need to do *something* to tell the server to turn on the feature
[18:52:35] <deryni> This sounds like an awful idea to have on by default, but either way you still need the client to be able to do something.
[18:53:07] <deryni> Anyway, if you want the ability to easily "opt in to this fancy sift rule" that's fine, but that's still sift.
[18:54:04] <Yagiza> 'cause if client knows how to process an <x /> element with a specific namespace and still processes it, it's just a client bug.
[18:55:12] <Yagiza> So, why do you think, that feature, which is useful in the most cases and may lead to problems only on buggy clients should not be on by default?
[18:55:52] <deryni> I don't know that I see this as being useful in most cases.
[18:56:29] <Yagiza> In the most cases it will just reduce traffic without any problem on eother side.
[18:56:38] <Yagiza> either
[18:57:22] <Yagiza> So the idea is turning it on by default.
[18:57:46] <darkrain_> I have a related question: what would you identify as the primary bloat in presence stanzas currently? My intuition is that the largest parts (beyond rfc6121-related things) are caps and vcard advertisements. Further, my intuition is that most clients actually support both of those things, so what would you be removing from most stanzas?
[18:57:46] <deryni> Personally, I'd need to see a lot more concrete evidence of that before I believed it.
[18:58:03] <deryni> But even without that this is still just sift.
[18:58:10] <deryni> Just a by-default sift rule.
[18:58:17] <deryni> For which you don't really need an xep.
[18:58:34] <deryni> And for any clients that don't support caps you couldn't use this anyway.
[18:58:49] <darkrain_> Haha, good point
[18:59:00] <Yagiza> Well...
[18:59:28] <Yagiza> The clients, which do not support caps at all this feature wil be left unnoticed.
[18:59:47] <deryni> No. Either this doesn't apply to them or you potentially break them horribly.
[19:01:23] <Yagiza> What do you mean by "don't support caps"?
[19:01:49] <deryni> The client does not have support for that XEP.
[19:02:04] <darkrain_> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0115.html
[19:02:15] * _wiretap joined the chat.
[19:02:32] <Yagiza> But that XEP just describes publication caps hash via <presence />, AFAIR...
[19:02:58] <deryni> Yes, which is what you were claiming the server would use to filter the presence to that client, no?
[19:03:09] <Yagiza> No
[19:03:19] <deryni> Or were you suggesting the server just filter out all <x> elements?
[19:03:24] <Yagiza> No
[19:03:50] <deryni> So then how does the server know with <x> elements it should filter/
[19:03:51] <deryni> ?
[19:04:27] <Yagiza> If the client didn't put his caps into <presence /> the server just have to discover its capabilities in a common way.
[19:05:20] <Yagiza> By sending an appropriate <iq /> when client is logged on.
[19:05:26] <deryni> What iq?
[19:05:47] <Yagiza> disco#info
[19:07:58] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[19:08:41] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[19:09:18] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[19:10:37] * _wiretap left the chat.
[19:10:39] * wiretap joined the chat.
[19:11:13] <deryni> Fine, assume that works. You still have to answer darkrain's question.
[19:11:51] <deryni> And even assuming the answer to that is reasonable this still just seems like a default sift rule to me.
[19:11:52] * wiretap left the chat.
[19:11:52] * wiretap joined the chat.
[19:12:53] <Yagiza> Well...
[19:13:03] <Yagiza> Let me think...
[19:14:56] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[19:17:55] * hawke left the chat.
[19:18:08] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:18:41] <Yagiza> I don't see, how sift rule for filtering only supported <x /> elements in <presence /> stanzas looks like.
[19:18:54] <Yagiza> Maybe I've missed something.
[19:19:08] <deryni> It isn't specified but it would be a payload rule.
[19:19:17] <MattJ> Yagiza, perhaps you could give a hint as to what you're trying to filter anyway?
[19:19:17] <deryni> At least given my reading of sift before.
[19:20:40] <Yagiza> MattJ, as I said before, I want to filter all the <x /> elements in the presence with namespaces, not supported by the client.
[19:21:20] <MattJ> What <x> elements?
[19:21:54] <Yagiza> MattJ, <x /> elements in <presence /> stanzas.
[19:22:10] <MattJ> What <x/> elements in <presence/> stanzas?
[19:22:13] * waqas joined the chat.
[19:22:37] <stpeter_> I want to block only <xxx/> elements in presence
[19:23:05] <darkrain_> stpeter_: Can we just move to a separate top-level stanza for porn instead?
[19:23:08] <MattJ> stpeter_, do we need a stream rating XEP?
[19:23:29] <stpeter_> XXXMPP!
[19:23:40] <stpeter_> a whole new protocol
[19:23:51] <Yagiza> MattJ, ALL the <x /> elements, which has namespaces not supported by the entity.
[19:23:59] <darkrain_> Yagiza: Specifically, which ones?
[19:24:01] <MattJ> Yagiza, can you give some examples?
[19:24:21] <Yagiza> MattJ, okay
[19:25:04] <Yagiza> <x xmlns="vcard-temp:x:update" /> for example
[19:25:10] <MattJ> Ok, what else?
[19:26:15] * hawke left the chat.
[19:26:51] <Yagiza> <x xmlns="jabber:x:avatar">
[19:27:34] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:28:14] * hawke left the chat.
[19:28:44] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:29:01] * hawke left the chat.
[19:29:16] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:29:56] * hawke left the chat.
[19:30:20] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:31:16] * hawke left the chat.
[19:31:28] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:31:32] * hawke left the chat.
[19:31:54] <waqas> Yagiza: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-March/023222.html - that first part might interest you
[19:32:36] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:32:40] * hawke left the chat.
[19:32:52] * hawke joined the chat.
[19:36:14] * hawke left the chat.
[19:39:38] * teo left the chat.
[19:39:39] * teo joined the chat.
[19:41:55] <Yagiza> /me read the document
[19:46:30] <Yagiza> /me didn't fount how to configure sift to remove only unsupported elements.
[19:47:03] * Fabian left the chat.
[19:49:37] * Florob joined the chat.
[19:49:49] <deryni> That's not built-in. The server would need to turn the caps advertisement into a matching sift rule.
[19:50:33] <Yagiza> Ok
[19:51:11] <Yagiza> So, anyway we need another XEP, which describes this behavior.
[19:51:27] <Yagiza> Or just improve this XEP to describe it.
[19:51:49] <deryni> Not really, only the way the client turns it on/off.
[19:52:15] <Yagiza> err...
[19:52:15] <deryni> (Which XEP would obviously have to explain what the feature was but that wouldn't be its reason for existing.)
[19:52:48] * jameschurchman joined the chat.
[19:53:10] <Yagiza> deryni, I can't get it
[19:53:38] <deryni> There's nothing about a server turning caps advertisements into sift rules that is XEP-able.
[19:53:57] <deryni> The sift spec would need to explain how payload rules should look though.
[19:54:04] * jameschurchman left the chat.
[19:54:14] <deryni> The protocol by which clients turn this on and off would need an XEP though.
[19:54:52] <Yagiza> Anyway we need a new XEP.
[19:55:13] <Yagiza> And it doesn't matter if it is based on sift or not.
[19:55:24] <Yagiza> Well...
[19:55:37] <Yagiza> It's too late here
[19:55:42] <Florob> What's the use-case for that anyway? Bandwidth?
[19:55:52] <Yagiza> Yes, of course
[19:58:16] <Florob> I can see how I don't want to receive presence all the time, but I'm not sure I care about the few extra bytes of <x/>s
[19:59:31] <Yagiza> But they are really uncompressable
[19:59:38] <Yagiza> And
[19:59:55] <MattJ> They are not, they're usually always the same
[20:00:37] <MattJ> If you ask me you're going overboard on this solution, it sounds like you just want to add something to your server to filter these 2 <x> elements
[20:00:55] <Yagiza> We can additionaly describe behavior, when after removing all the unsupported elements <presence /> represents just the same presence contact already has, just discard the whole prosence!
[20:02:00] <MattJ> Sure, that's again a server feature, not something we need to standardize
[20:03:19] <Yagiza> Yes, but we need a XEP to which describes, how to determine if feature is supporte by the server and how to configure (switch on/off) the feature.
[20:04:05] <Florob> Okay different angel: If the server supports that feature, what is the use-case for ever not using it?
[20:04:28] <Florob> I don't think any client will care to receive the elements it doesn't recognize
[20:04:30] <Yagiza> I don't really know
[20:04:46] <MattJ> Partly because it's not backwards compatible for Yagiza's use-case
[20:05:03] <MattJ> He wants to filter http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0008.html which doesn't have a disco feature defined
[20:05:26] <Yagiza> But here some guys said that the feature is awful and needs to be configurable and even switch off by default.
[20:05:52] <deryni> I said I don't see why it should be on by default and that if it is it needs to be something a client can turn off.
[20:06:02] <deryni> If it was an XEP.
[20:06:09] <deryni> As a server feature none of that matters.
[20:06:23] <Yagiza> Well...
[20:06:34] <Yagiza> I have to go to bed...
[20:06:38] <Yagiza> Bye!
[20:06:43] <waqas> I think Florob meant the "represents just the same presence contact already has, just discard the whole prosence!" part could always be turned on
[20:07:09] * Yagiza left the chat.
[20:08:14] <Florob> waqas, No, MattJ's comment was in fact very appropriate. Especially since that "represents just the same [...]" stuff was assuming you had removed extensions
[20:10:46] * marseille left the chat.
[20:47:26] * marseille joined the chat.
[20:52:20] * b-seize joined the chat.
[21:05:21] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[21:06:52] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[21:10:01] * marseille left the chat.
[21:13:39] * marseille joined the chat.
[21:23:57] * harrykar joined the chat.
[21:24:59] * deryni left the chat.
[21:30:28] * waqas left the chat.
[21:32:30] * b-seize left the chat.
[21:34:34] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[21:42:34] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:49:13] * Fabian joined the chat.
[21:49:15] * Zash left the chat.
[21:49:37] * Zash joined the chat.
[21:51:56] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:51:57] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:53:33] * MattJ left the chat.
[21:56:05] * jcea left the chat.
[21:59:51] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:04:12] * hawke joined the chat.
[22:06:39] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[22:07:15] * hawke left the chat.
[22:08:26] * hawke joined the chat.
[22:19:04] * Zash left the chat.
[22:19:11] * deryni joined the chat.
[22:24:00] * rtreffer left the chat.
[22:25:22] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[22:27:59] * louiz’ left the chat.
[22:33:49] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[22:37:31] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[22:47:39] * nikita_ left the chat.
[22:50:41] * rtreffer joined the chat.
[22:59:06] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[23:00:55] * Florob left the chat.
[23:02:46] * rtreffer left the chat.
[23:06:15] * rtreffer joined the chat.
[23:34:55] * louiz’ left the chat.
[23:34:59] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[23:39:31] * jameschurchman joined the chat.
[23:42:01] * Fabian left the chat.
[23:48:13] * hawke left the chat.
[23:56:31] * jameschurchman left the chat.