attention,
specially in server side: it's important to have permission management easy
for the end-user.
Cheers
Jérôme Poisson (aka Goffi)
PS: I have also worked on features for my client that I'd like to standardize,
like a generic card games management.
Le Jeudi 18 Août 2011 19:29:21, Sergey Dobrov a écrit :
first, here are my main needs for microblogging:
- the possibility to have several nodes with different access models,
and for a user to subscribe to them automatically
Could you give some example usecases for that? Since I don't
Le Jeudi 18 Août 2011 20:40:05, Sergey Dobrov a écrit :
It's a bad idea to append the number to the namespace since it reserved
for different revisions of XEP and not for your purpose. Again, I think
that this should be solved by some privacy lists extension since your
decision again
I'm implementing this one first.
Any suggestion welcome
thanks
Goffi
this XEP and put the
experimental status ? Is anybody working on something similar ?
Thanks
Goffi
PS: sent a copy of this to the author of the XEP, and the standard@
mailing list.
.
Cheers
Goffi
Le mardi 29 mai 2012 09:35:10 Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
I'm not a big fan of invisibility, but if we're going to do it then we
might as well do it right.
Some clients and servers use XEP-0018, but it violates the core XMPP
specs, which seems like a bad idea.
Some clients
Le 29/05/2012 19:01, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
So it sounds as if you're a target user for privacy lists. :) I'm not
necessarily interested in forbidding or deprecating privacy lists, but
in general I think they're complicated and that invisiblity and
blocking are the most common use cases,
G'day,
I just realised that you answered my question later !
Any news on that ? Did the initial author finally answered ?
Where is your rewritten XEP available ?
Cheers
Goffi
Le vendredi 7 décembre 2012 17:46:40 Sergey Dobrov a écrit :
There was no response to my letter so I rewrote the XEP
Ok, because I have some comments on the proto-xep, so I'm waiting for the
feedback.
thanks
Le mardi 5 mars 2013 16:34:43 Sergey Dobrov a écrit :
On 03/05/2013 04:17 PM, Goffi wrote:
G'day,
Hello,
I just realised that you answered my question later !
Any news on that ? Did
- what about anonymous comments ?
Anyway, we should definitely avoid 2 XEPs for comments.
I wander if I'm missing something, so if anybody has tried an
implementation of the XEP-0303 and/or XEP-0277, please give feedbacks.
Cheers
Goffi
to switch server, or to try
experimental implementation in our favorite language.
So, is it possible to remove these restrictions from the XEP ? Or at
least to have an unsecure mode, and a secure mode with full access to
roster ?
Cheers
Goffi
to work on protoxep for this now, anybody interested in the
subject please manifest yourself :)
Cheers
Goffi
Le mercredi 13 novembre 2013, 18:35:45 Matthew Wild a écrit :
On 13 November 2013 18:12, Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
So, is it possible to remove these restrictions from the XEP
Le jeudi 8 mai 2014, 10:45:02 Dave Cridland a écrit :
Trapping namespaces on IQ seems relatively easy to implement. Trapping
namespaces on messages and presence, though, seems harder, because you need
to decide if the stanza is forked or if the component processes exclusively.
Your right.
://repos.goffi.org/sat_docs/file/677de998f9d9/xmpp/xep-proto-privileged-component.xml
.
Feedbacks more than welcome.
Cheers
Goffi
done things badly,
You can find the html version on
http://www.goffi.org/public/xmpp/xep/xep-proto-privileged-component.html,
and the XML on
http://repos.goffi.org/sat_docs/file/677de998f9d9/xmpp/xep-proto-privileged
-component.xml .
Feedbacks more than welcome.
Cheers
Goffi
if the component want to request directly the client, but indeed a full jid is
needed in the case of an IQ to the client, so it's probably a good idea to
remove the privilege/ element...
Cheers
Goffi
Le vendredi 9 mai 2014, 20:52:42 Goffi a écrit :
I forgot to mention: the permission mechanism is largely
because you may want to delegate a namespace (e.g. vcard-temp) without
giving privileged access, it's an other thing.
Cheers
Goffi
Le 2014-05-15 10:44, Steven Lloyd Watkin a écrit :
Id see this as a separate XEP myself since were talking about two
essentially different use cases (although Id assume theyd often be
used in parallel).
I'm planing to work on a separate « namespace delegation » XEP for this
reason.
Ive
Le 2014-05-15 22:24, Dave Cridland a écrit :
Furhtermore, Binary suggested to use permission even in admin mode
(without user confirmation in this case): a server may want to only
allow jabber:iq:roster get to a component. We can use this phase
to aknowledge the component of which permissions
G'day,
On 24/07/2014 20:47, Adrien wrote:
Western or central Europe would be easier for me... can't suggest a
place though.
Same thing for me, I would try to attend a summit if it is in western or
central Europe (specially Prague, Wien or Paris).
Cheers
Goffi (Salut à Toi project)
active these days.
If teams of different projects can meet up, maybe we can manage something.
Cheers
Goffi (Salut à Toi project)
(http://salut-a-toi.org), made in python. If
anybody is interested, we can have a short talk about the project and
make a demo.
cheers
Goffi
On 23/07/2014 17:53, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
Hello folks,
We are wondering if anyone would be interested in autumn summit if we'd
move it from North
, centralized (even if git
itself is decentralized, everything else is centralized), and probably
with bad terms of use.
cheers
Goffi
On 01/09/2014 23:26, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:03:43 +0100
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
See Kurt's comment as to one possible reason why.
I use it for both work and pleasure; I'm more in the camp of wanting
to avoid a proprietary outsourced lockin for a core
On 02/09/2014 09:53, Goffi wrote:
G'day
On 01/09/2014 21:43, Dave Cridland wrote:
Not all our contributors currently will use github.
Yes that's my case: I haven't a github account, and I definitely don't
want one. Actually I think it would be a shame to use that for XMPP as
it is the exact
is not neutral, and there is not only one way to make think
simple (and it's actually more simple and easy to use email than to
force people to create an account to a service).
Goffi
Hi,
On 18/09/2014 20:19, Lance Stout wrote:
This is a relevant proposal for some stuff I'm working on, so ^5 for writing
this.
I'm glad if it seems useful :)
- It doesn't look like there is a defined way to edit or remove permissions
once granted
(at least for the client case). There
Regards
Goffi
attribute is good (it's capulet.lit, not
pubsub.capulet.lit), client can check it without problem.
cheers
Goffi
been granted and we can do it with a simple message stanza containing
the namespaces.
If we choose to specify namespaces in configuration, that's an option
indeed. But first it's important to specify what to do when component is
down, thank you for pointing this.
Cheers
Goffi
messages). OTR need to work with non XMPP gateways. It would
be really good to standardize all that...
Cheers
Goffi
service is an option generic and available quickly.
I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject.
Cheers
Goffi
Le mardi 16 décembre 2014, 16:12:00 Dave Cridland a écrit :
Folks,
At the last Council meeting, I entered a position of -1 concerning
Privileged Entity:
http://xmpp.org
forward, instead of
simply blocking progress.
I'm hoping too, we're putting a lot of effort to have a decent
(micro)-blogging platform on XMPP, and sometimes we have the filling to
fight against windmills.
So let me know what I can do to move forward.
Cheers
Goffi
the extra bits in their PEP
services, though; this being why I've asked Goffi specifically about
what's missing.
That's not an option for us: even if one server implements what we need,
we need a generic option which works everywhere. In addition we are
doing experimentations and we have/need a quick
an entire new thing
(and hopefully without postponing by months or years).
Goffi
things are more clear now :)
Goffi
) with
XEP-0277 compliant clients. Correct me if I'm wrong
Cheers
Goffi
, and keep it as simple (and implementable) as possible
- once everybody agree on an ABAC system, we can re-implement a generic
system to allow external entities to access some of server privileges
Cheers
Goffi
On 17/12/2014 19:01, Goffi wrote:
On 17/12/2014 18:06, Dave Cridland wrote:
OK, I
On 03/02/2015 15:46, Dave Cridland wrote:
We can work around this in namespace delegation by adding an
attribute check in addition to namespace check, that would be better
than sending back the traffic to the server, even if it complicate the
XEP. I would still be more happy with an other
Some clients do weird stuff like encoding XHTML-IM (which is probably
not a good idea at all). Also a XEP should give some advices on what to
allow, saying that history should be disabled by default, this kind of
things.
Also there is an OTR space-based discovery system which should be
.
Goffi
on PubSub/PEP.
Thanks
Goffi
see any major issue.
/K
Cheers
Goffi
G'day Kev,
sorry for the late answer.
4.1 (roster access) would be nice to clarify that this is independent of the
roster stuff in 6121, despite looking similar (none,to,from,both).
It is related to RFC 6121, there is only none and both in addition
for managing the permission
4.2. To
On 27/01/2015 16:30, Kevin Smith wrote:
It was not blocked by Council, it’ll be published once the Editors have a
chance.
Ok great :)
I'll publish a new revision for that and also namespace delegation I
still need to some change with last feedbacks, after I'll try a prosody
implementation,
first).
Cheers
Goffi
On 05/05/2015 16:59, Sergey Dobrov wrote:
On 01/05/2015 21:28, Goffi wrote:
Sorry I was not replying, I'm quite busy now, but am going to join you
guys ASAP, unfortunately, got a flu now.
No worries, nice to see you back.
Yes, I am aware of the issue but it can't be fixed before we have
On 18/04/2015 11:03, Dave Cridland wrote:
Between XEP-0355 and carbons, I think you're covered already, at first
thought.
Indeed the XEP-0355 has a mechanism to delegate MAM (or something else)
to any entity under the control of the user. The issue here is that the
data still go through the
encryption model, but being able to use it with
gateways or to diffuse the public key seems important to me.
Thanks
Goffi
On 31/07/2015 10:27, Daniele Ricci wrote:
Hello Goffi,
XEP-0027 has serious security concerns, especially regarding reply
attacks and key verification (you can read those in the Security
considerations paragraph of the XEP). It's true that a real
replacement hasn't been drafted yet
On 30/07/2015 11:35, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:07:28 +0200
Goffi go...@goffi.org wrote:
What is the point in implementing file transfer protocol which will not
work in all cases (MUC, offline, etc)? Why a developer would need
proxy65 if it's not MUC friendly? I really see
to implement file transfer, making developers life better.
So to sum up: I rather see an xmpp: uri than an http: one to share
files with XMPP.
Goffi
opinion). If indeed both can live together,
well, why not.
Goffi
] ?
Goffi
if a publisher can
overwrite an item initially published by somebody else
- if this option is present, it MUST default to false (i.e. a publisher
can't overwrite something that he didn't publish).
Thanks
Goffi
button, but a click on it result in an error, while the
finish button act as expected.
My guess is that execute should be equivalent to complete when
next is not possible (but what if complete is disabled too ?).
Cheers
Goffi
ead is long enough
to not launch again the subject, I have already expressed my opinion. If
privacy list are deprecated and if we need the missing feature, I can write
the XEP myself (if nobody do it before).
Cheers
Goffi
I'm strongly against deprecating XEP-0016: we are working a lot with groups,
and neither XEP-0191 nor XEP-0186 allow to block/be (in)visible only for a
group.
I think a XEP should not be deprecated if its features are not superseeded by
the new one(s).
thanks
Goffi
Le mardi 29 septembre 2015
s long as it is not possible to do that, privacy lists should not be
deprecated.
There are probably other use cases I don't think about right now, maybe other
developers/users can point them out.
Goffi
scribed,
> from draining a mobile users battery by sending stanzas to the users JID.
>
> - Florian
Good idea, but the page is only talking about blocking, invisibility is in the
same boat (it's not possible to be (in)visible to a roster group with
XEP-0186).
Goffi
Le mardi 5 janvier 2016, 16:10:56 Sam Whited a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote:
> > The diff page don't seems to work for me (iceweasel or chromium), am I the
> > only one ? I see no diff highlighted, just the full XEP, and left/right
e are interested, I would like to work on a "PubSub searching"
protoXEP. PubSub will probably be the core of many major features in XMPP in
the future, so we need a good, generic, and extendable way to search/filter
items.
Regards
Goffi
___
Le mardi 5 janvier 2016, 16:49:53 Peter Waher a écrit :
> Hello
>
> Does anyone have experience in using markdown in XMPP IM chat applications?
>
> More and more applications use markdown as a simple way to format text
> messages on the fly, and I'm considering using markdown in XMPP IM chat as
ters/composition)
Markdown is not standardized, and there will probably always be different
flavours, I don't think it fit with XMPP, and it should definitely be a client
only feature and not in a XEP in my opinion.
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: htt
313: why
it is *really* not a good idea to use MAM with Pubsub" that I have posted
yesterday. There is a big overhead by overwrapping items with is probably not
desirable.
I'm really excited by many improvements on XMPP these days, looking forward
for the s
on XML in addition, meaning that client need a
specific parser) is a bad path.
Regards
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
tten, and I'm actually interested in it. Is it
possible to update its status ?
Thanks
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
The diff page don't seems to work for me (iceweasel or chromium), am I the only
one ? I see no diff highlighted, just the full XEP, and left/right arrow don't
work.
Le mardi 5 janvier 2016, 21:51:28 XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
> Version 1.5.1 of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) has been released.
>
>
, etc.
What do you think about it ?
Thanks
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
Le lundi 28 décembre 2015, 23:22:57 Florian Schmaus a écrit :
> On 28.12.2015 19:33, Goffi wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > I'm looking at XEP-0313 at the moment, and I see several strange things:
> >
> > - the is a element in examples 9 and 11 but no mention elsew
, where should the "complete" attribute of
example 11 be?
- In section 4 it is said "The final response MUST include an RSM
", but in section 4.1.3 (example 9) and section 4.1.4 (example 11) the
RSM is in the result.
Where should
cases (PubSub node, MUC).
- how do we reference something without URI ? A message stanza for instance ?
How do we specify the id ?
- how begin/end attributes work when there are several bodies ? e.g.: XHTML-
IM: how to we references XHTML body ?
- how do we use begin/end attributes with stan
vetoed if there is a more generic option,
but I'd like to know what it is and how it can replace a jid mention.
Also, I still don't see why "it looks like half a solution".
So more information and/or a link to a protoXEP would be welcome
Thanks :)
Goffi
___
so with an additional XEP.
++
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
ver,
as the examples in the XEP are not colored.
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
ow the status of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-xmpp-secure-00 and would be
interested to see people from the different new options (OMEMO, draft-thomson-
xmpp-secure-00 and OX (new OpenPGP)).
Thanks
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
nt with the
element. The mentioned entity receive the message and check the from attribute
(or the element). I don't see where string matching is needed.
But maybe I misunderstood your point. By "other end" are talking about the
mentioned entity or the mentioning entity?
++
Goffi
Le mercredi 20 janvier 2016, 19:43:30 Dave Cridland a écrit :
> On 20 January 2016 at 16:43, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> 3) When you're back online, the chatroom might even send the notification
> *then*, rather like a lot of bots do now.
>
> Still,
Le mercredi 20 janvier 2016, 09:33:46 Goffi a écrit :
> Le mardi 19 janvier 2016, 16:49:22 XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> >
> > Title: Content Types in Messages
> >
> > Abstract: This
e original syntax in cache trivially). Why not doing the
conversion markdown => XHTML-IM client side before sending the message?
For blogging, it's more natural to use XHTML, and anyway this XEP doesn't
cover the case (blogging use PubSub, not messages).
Regards
Goffi
__
Hi Kev,
thanks for your answer, I put a few notes here so we can talk about it if
needed tomorrow.
Le dimanche 24 janvier 2016, 17:25:44 Kevin Smith a écrit :
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:08, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote:
> > - All items a returned in separate stanza, wrapped in a
&g
of the veto and what I need to change
Thanks
Goffi
Le lundi 8 février 2016, 11:41:22 Goffi a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> Le jeudi 4 février 2016, 15:57:05 Goffi a écrit :
> > I've not problem to have this XEP vetoed if there is a more generic
> > option,
> > but I'd like to know what i
bot to send the issues on standard@, so we don't have to look at different
places to know what's happening.
++
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
that alls XEPs are visible.
I know it's a lot of work and I don't have really time to help on the website,
but I wonder if it is not possible to put the old page somewhere the time to
have a feature equivalent one with the new website ?
Thanks
Goffi
Hello,
Jingle file transfer could be used for that with and "xmpp:" URI, but we still
don't have Jingle URI (this would be easy to solve though).
There is also XEP-0231 but it's more suitable for small images.
++
Goffi
Le dimanche 13 mars 2016, 15:52:01 Peter Waher a écrit :
>
?
Thanks
Goffi
Le mercredi 17 février 2016, 10:38:12 Goffi a écrit :
> Hi Dave,
>
> Sorry to re-launch the topic, but I still don't know what is wrong with JID
> mention and what I need to change to avoid the veto. I have had no
> explanation on the veto, and references doesn't repl
Hello,
for our XMPP based static blog ( e.g.
http://www.goffi.org/blog/goffi/71eaf561-3f89-4fa5-8bc9-82af76229384 ) I'm
adding a element to point to the xmpp: URI.
I'm wondering which MIME type should be used here, I first found the MIME type
"application/xmpp+xml" defined
be issued when this specification advances to a
status of Draft." should be replaced by "urn:xmpp:delay" now that the XEP is
final.
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
it as soon
as Jingle File Transfert is a draft standard.
++
Goffi
Le lundi 2 mai 2016, 10:25:01 CEST Christian Schudt a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've had a brief discussion [1] about how the fallback to IBB works in SI
> filetransfer.
> It's mentioned twice in XEP-0096 and it reads like a
ts" but they are
actually attributes
And I think that's it. I'm willing to implement mentions in our client, but
these points are still blocking, and I hope we can solve this quickly.
Thanks :)
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail
have talked about that on standard@ MUC, I'll send a patch soon.
Thanks
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
that it can store it, and to tell to server and destinee's device not
to store anything?
Thanks
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
Le lundi 13 février 2017, 09:24:47 CET Sam Whited a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Goffi <go...@goffi.org> wrote:
> > - proof of work would be really nice, with a fallback mechanism.
>
> If by a "fallback mechanism" my understanding is correct and you
ssary to delete uploaded files too, or other things. Account deletion
would be really nice to propose, but it need to be well thought in my humble
opinion.
- proof of work would be really nice, with a fallback mechanism.
Regards
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
eaving its current version, and clarify XEP-0300 that Base64 is to be
> used, leaving it also at its current version.
>
> Anybody on this list got an objection or remarks on this approach?
>
> Cheers,
> Tobi
Hello,
Salut à Toi does Jingle Fi
://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_techniques
What do you think ?
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
Le lundi 16 janvier 2017, 17:03:51 CET W. Martin Borgert a écrit :
> Quoting Goffi <go...@goffi.org>:
> > Instead of blocking unconditionally unknown users (which is not an option
> > for me), would not it make sense to use some kind of challenge (e.g.
> > captcha
__
Hi,
the idea is not new, but it would be very nice to have "profiles" for
compliance suites. Today there is nothing for file transfer or video (actually
it could be a new section in the current
s recently announced that OMEMO has been audited.
Gajim has also an implementation, for now it's the 2 only ones (to my
knowledge), but other clients are planing to do implementation.
Goffi
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/l
Le lundi 5 septembre 2016, 10:26:00 CEST Steve Kille a écrit :
> There was a good deal of discussion on the MIX list
hello,
there is a separated list for following MIX? I have had time to follow
everything lastly, so I may have missed it, if so where can we subscribe?
Thanks
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
