Logs for jdev
[00:18:43] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[00:25:51] * Tobias left the chat.
[00:54:15] * Vincent V. left the chat.
[00:54:33] * Vincent V. joined the chat.
[07:19:18] * Asterix joined the chat.
[07:19:30] * Alex joined the chat.
[07:20:18] * Tobias joined the chat.
[07:42:44] * Kev joined the chat.
[07:46:31] * Asterix left the chat.
[08:16:34] * guus joined the chat.
[08:30:37] * harrykar joined the chat.
[08:35:04] * Zash joined the chat.
[08:46:24] * harrykar left the chat.
[08:48:01] * harrykar joined the chat.
[09:16:37] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[09:39:46] * guus left the chat.
[11:05:36] * jcea joined the chat.
[11:43:29] * guus joined the chat.
[12:40:19] * tkoski joined the chat.
[12:40:19] * tkoski left the chat.
[12:48:28] * xnyhps left the chat.
[12:49:07] * xnyhps joined the chat.
[13:29:28] * Zash left the chat.
[13:33:51] * Tobias left the chat.
[13:37:28] * Tobias joined the chat.
[13:39:29] * Asterix joined the chat.
[13:45:07] * naw joined the chat.
[14:10:11] * Alex left the chat.
[14:10:11] * Alex joined the chat.
[14:25:10] * Maranda joined the chat.
[14:28:35] * Zash joined the chat.
[14:40:13] * naw left the chat.
[14:41:42] * Tobias left the chat.
[15:06:38] * Alex left the chat.
[15:12:05] * deryni joined the chat.
[15:22:47] * Asterix left the chat.
[15:44:04] * Vincent V._ joined the chat.
[15:53:37] * Tobias joined the chat.
[16:17:02] * Asterix joined the chat.
[16:17:39] * psa joined the chat.
[16:17:46] * Asterix left the chat.
[16:18:00] * Asterix joined the chat.
[16:18:26] * markus-kohlhase joined the chat.
[16:18:48] * markus-kohlhase left the chat.
[16:24:37] * flosse joined the chat.
[16:52:10] * evilotto joined the chat.
[17:04:21] * Maranda left the chat.
[17:23:49] * guus left the chat.
[17:31:27] * flosse left the chat.
[17:53:59] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[18:16:03] * rion joined the chat.
[18:19:06] <rion> I'm reading rfc6122 and can't understand is it valid to have 0x20 as Domainpart? looks like nameprep and rfc1035 do not forbid
[18:19:42] <psa> um
[18:19:59] <psa> yeah that's not allowed
[18:20:13] <Zash> Ie, a space?
[18:20:21] <rion> yep
[18:20:31] * Testur joined the chat.
[18:20:36] <Zash> -nameprep foo bar
[18:20:36] <Testur> Zash: foo bar
[18:22:46] <Zash> psa, but where is it disallowed?
[18:22:59] <Kev> In DNS?
[18:23:00] <rion> Psi thinks " " is valid as domain part.
gotta fix this then.
in any case jid validation in Psi is far from perfect.
[18:23:55] <rion> its from dns rfc (1035)
<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "
[18:24:10] <Zash> -rfc 1035
[18:24:10] <Testur> Zash: Match was too big
[18:24:13] <Zash> meh
[18:24:51] <Zash> dns tools don't complain about looking up things with space in them
[18:25:13] <Zash> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
;foo\032bar. IN A
[18:25:59] <rion> Zash: I'm about just space, not a string with spaces =)
[18:26:17] <rion> and yes dns tools accept it too =)
[18:28:04] <Zash> The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.
[18:35:12] <rion> Zash: ah didn't noticed that. but this magic line <domain> ::= <subdomain> | " " is still magic.. so magic..
[18:36:48] <psa> sorry, got interrupted IRL
[18:39:26] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:39:27] * Lance left the chat.
[18:39:27] <rion> > [00:20] <psa> yeah that's not allowed
I beleive to your words since you are psa =) . I hope its documented somewhere and I just can't find where =)
[18:40:01] <Zash> is pipe OR in that notation?
[18:40:27] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:47:09] <rion> heh just tried
<invite to="a@ "/>
no error replied. =)
[18:48:59] <Zash> <iq id='lx3' type='set'>
<query ver='2776' xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
<item jid='foo bar' subscription='none'/>
[18:49:18] <Zash> yeaaaaah
[18:49:54] <rion> if I remove the space here <invite to="a@ "/> then error =)
[18:50:09] <psa> ok, thinking this through, the rules in RFC 6122 reference RFC 3986 and RFC 3490, i.e.:
domainpart = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn
an IP-literal or IPv4address can't be just a space, so you must think that an ifqdn could have a space, and that rule is defined
ifqdn = 1*(namepoint)
thus it would need to be true that a "namepoint" could be a space, and in fact that seems to be true (!!), because RFC 3491
This profile specifies prohibiting using the following tables from
but *not* Table C.1.1 from RFC 3454, which says:
----- Start Table C.1.1 -----
----- End Table C.1.1 -----
[18:50:20] <psa> I'll need to investigate further
[18:50:48] <Zash> add x@
[18:51:09] <psa> if this is a bug in RFC 3491 (and I don't remember any discussion about that), in any case it is fixed in RFC 5892 (which
is what 6122bis uses)
[18:51:11] <Zash> <iq id='lx5' type='set'><query ver='2778' xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'><item jid='x@ ' subscription='none'/></query></iq>
[18:51:23] <Zash> -do nameprep(" ")
[18:51:23] <Testur> Zash:
[18:52:52] <psa> see http://www.iana.org/assignments/idnabis-tables/idnabis-tables.xml for the IDNA2008 rules, they say: 0000-002C DISALLOWED
[18:53:24] <psa> /me needs to finish work on 6122bis and related specifications
[18:53:46] <psa> brb
[18:54:22] <Zash> -do idn(" ")
[18:54:22] <Testur> Zash: nil
[18:55:14] * Lance left the chat.
[18:56:16] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:56:16] * Lance left the chat.
[18:58:07] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:58:11] <rion> and next string from rfc6122 may be interpreted as "if name can't be converted to idna its disalowed since idna forced"
"A domainpart consisting of a fully qualified domain name MUST be an "internationalized domain name" as defined in [IDNA2003];"
[18:58:45] <psa> it was certainly never the *intent* to have empty domainparts in XMPP, see http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0029.html
[18:59:40] <rion> thanks =)
[19:01:01] <psa> if there's a bug in RFC 3491, we inherited that bug, but we didn't know we were signing up for domainparts with only spaces
[19:14:01] * naw joined the chat.
[20:08:00] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[20:08:00] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[20:09:49] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[20:13:23] * rion left the chat.
[20:41:09] * psa left the chat.
[20:42:44] * psa joined the chat.
[20:47:08] * Vincent V._ left the chat.
[20:54:14] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[20:55:41] * Lance left the chat.
[20:58:43] * deryni left the chat.
[21:15:41] * Tobias_ joined the chat.
[21:19:10] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:41:18] * dwd joined the chat.
[21:58:21] * flosse joined the chat.
[22:05:01] * deryni joined the chat.
[22:23:28] <flosse> hey!
[22:23:44] * Zash left the chat.
[22:24:24] * scippio joined the chat.
[22:24:50] <flosse> does someone have experiences with the xep proposal process?
[22:25:08] <Kev> Yes.
[22:25:19] <Kev> What's up?
[22:25:59] <flosse> so are there any requirements/criteria for getting a xep to a proposed status?
[22:26:22] <Kev> There isn't a 'proposed' status for XEPs, per se.
[22:26:30] <Kev> The process is roughly:
[22:26:32] <dwd> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0143.html and http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html are your friends.
[22:27:11] <Kev> 1) Write a proposal
2) Submit it to the XEP Editor, who'll pass it to Council to accept/reject
3) It then becomes Experimental (if accepted)
4) Some time later you can ask for it to be advanced to Draft
5) Then to Final.
[22:27:12] <flosse> yes, therein it says "the XMPP Council must agree that the XEP is ready"
[22:28:09] <dwd> flosse, Well the Council needs not to veto it at each stage, but you do have to work quite hard for the Council to veto it
[22:28:31] <dwd> flosse, Or rather, Proto-XEP => Experimental.
[22:28:41] <Kev> Sorry, yes, there is a Proposed state - it just doesn't last long.
[22:28:53] <Kev> It's just while it's being discussed for advancement from Experimental to Draft.
[22:29:01] <dwd> (Realised I've slipped into the bad habit of referring to Proto XEPs as being Proposed, which is wrong).
[22:29:44] <Kev> flosse: When moving from Experimental->Draft->Final, Council have to actively vote to accept it.
[22:29:58] <Kev> The reverse is true for publishing as Experimental.
[22:30:14] <flosse> I'm playing around with xep 0075 http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0075.html and my question is: what has to happen to update
[22:30:46] <Kev> Oh, golly. That's an old and weird one :)
[22:30:55] <flosse> right *g*
[22:31:11] <flosse> but imo it looks great ;-)
[22:31:47] <Kev> What do you want to do with it?
[22:31:50] <Kev> By which I mean:
[22:31:59] <flosse> I couldn't find any reason why it's "bad"
[22:32:04] <Kev> Do you want to just cause it to not be deferred, or do you want to update it?
[22:32:25] <Kev> Deferred doesn't mean Rejected or Deprecated - it just means it was Experimental and the author stopped updating it before
moving it to Draft.
[22:32:34] <Tobias_> heh..that one is by evan? before his identi.ca endavours ^^
[22:32:42] <dwd> Yes, indeed.
[22:32:47] <flosse> I'd update it if necessary
[22:32:51] <Tobias_> interesting
[22:33:44] * Zash joined the chat.
[22:34:07] <Zash> what look great?
[22:34:15] <dwd> Zash, My hair.
[22:34:20] <Kev> flosse: I've not read that one, ever, so I don't know what to suggest yet.
[22:34:21] <dwd> Zash, I just washed it.
[22:34:29] <psa> /me doesn't remember XEP 75
[22:34:33] <Kev> flosse: I'm happy to pop it onto the end of the Council agenda for tomorrow.
[22:34:35] <Kev> psa: JOAP.
[22:34:45] <Kev> To ask what people think needs doing to it.
[22:34:52] <Kev> Although I imagine everyone else will be as clueless as me.
[22:35:13] <Zash> /me can't remember ever seeing JOAP before
[22:35:19] <Kev> 2003, Zash.
[22:35:20] <flosse> I wrote a little lib for playing with it: https://github.com/flosse/node-xmpp-joap
[22:35:20] <psa> we could ask Evan what he was thinking at the time :)
[22:35:27] <Zash> dwd: Pix or it never happend
[22:35:29] <Tobias_> psa, +1
[22:35:41] <dwd> psa, That can be read in more than one way.
[22:35:53] <psa> dwd: indeed :)
[22:35:57] <dwd> "Evan, what on earth were you thinking?!?!"
[22:36:51] * Asterix left the chat.
[22:39:16] <Kev> I have some reservations about this, but it's getting on for eleven at night, and I'm only glancing at it.
[22:39:30] <Kev> Particularly the use of resources (I realise MUC is a precedent).
[22:39:55] <psa> 2003 was a long time ago :)
[22:40:07] <Kev> Pre-XMPP, even, depending how you count.
[22:40:27] <psa> right around then, yes
[22:41:03] <Kev> I wonder, idly, if this would be better built on top of pubsub these days.
[22:41:28] <Kev> But I'm not going to read it in enough depth to understand it properly tonight.
[22:42:01] <flosse> I'll think about the pubsub idea
[22:42:23] <Kev> I'm too tired to make particularly useful suggestions, don't take that as an edict or anything.
[22:42:26] <Zash> Someone popped into #jabber and referenced XEP-35 the other night
[22:42:37] <Kev> Zash: Yes, that was scary.
[22:42:39] <Zash> How do people even find all these?
[22:43:47] <Zash> I think I've scrolled through the entire list of XEPs and I can't rememeber seeing that one, or '75
[22:44:00] <Kev> Well, 35 is retracted.
[22:44:30] <psa> Zash: not sure, but sometimes it's good to revisit old proposals
[22:44:47] <Kev> Looking at 75 some more, the pubsub comment was probably out of place.
[22:46:07] <Kev> flosse: Could you possibly write a mail to the standards list, outlining what you're intending doing with -75, and let that
start a discussion, please?
[22:46:57] <flosse> ok, where do I find the correct list?
[22:47:32] <Zash> So, there's Jabber-RPC, Ad-Hoc, SOAP-over-XMPP, JOAP...
[22:47:56] <Kev> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
[22:48:05] <flosse> thx
[22:48:20] <Kev> Now, bed. GN.
[22:48:27] <Zash> nn Kev
[22:49:06] <flosse> gn!
[22:49:35] <flosse> Jabber-RPC is included in JOAP
[22:49:57] * naw left the chat.
[22:50:09] <flosse> ad-hoc is very limited to human-interaction and simple data
[22:50:21] <flosse> SOAP is quite complex
[22:51:06] <Zash> SOAP or SOAP over XMPP?
[22:51:34] <flosse> both ;-)
[22:52:21] <Zash> The later shouldn't be so complicated imo, "just stick SOAP stuff in XMPP like this"
[22:53:04] <Zash> Standards reuse \o/
[22:53:07] <flosse> you're right...it's the SOAP part that look a bit bloated ;-)
[22:54:14] <Zash> I'm pretty sure that you aren't supposed to look at SOAP directly ;)
[22:54:27] <Zash> Magic code-generation and all that
[22:56:05] <darkrain_> I think you're right, which is something that bugs me a lot. I like protocols which were designed for me to look at, because
I almost always end up trying to get under the hood to grok what's going on.
[22:56:11] <darkrain_> </peeve>
[22:58:24] <flosse> and why should I use a complex protocol for simple tasks? I guess that complex systems are more likely to produce error you
[23:10:13] * Lance joined the chat.
[23:10:13] * Lance left the chat.
[23:11:09] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[23:14:21] * Lance joined the chat.
[23:22:13] * Zash left the chat.
[23:43:17] * psa left the chat.