[Standards] Incorrect example in XEP-0059 Result Set Management
Hello, Regarding http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html: In example 13, shouldn't the value of the 'index' attribute be 371 rather than 10? Regards, Guus
Re: [Standards] XMPP logo licensing
On 12/6/11 6:34 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 01:50 -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi, is XMPP's logo licensed? Apparently a free license would help including it on Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo_XMPP.svg ). This page[1] it's designed by this designer[2], who has a BY-NC-ND badge at the bottom of the page. I don't know if that means that license applies to all logos or just the site. [1]: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/website-credits/ [2]: http://www.rajasandhu.com/ The whole xmpp.org website (including the logo) is under a slightly modified MIT license. The licensing used by the logo designer is irrelevant, since the XSF paid for the logo and can put it under whatever license it prefers. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] XMPP logo licensing
Le 2011-12-06 10:13, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : On 12/6/11 6:34 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 01:50 -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi, is XMPP's logo licensed? Apparently a free license would help including it on Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo_XMPP.svg ). This page[1] it's designed by this designer[2], who has a BY-NC-ND badge at the bottom of the page. I don't know if that means that license applies to all logos or just the site. [1]: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/website-credits/ [2]: http://www.rajasandhu.com/ The whole xmpp.org website (including the logo) is under a slightly modified MIT license. The licensing used by the logo designer is irrelevant, since the XSF paid for the logo and can put it under whatever license it prefers. Peter Great, thanks Is there a page on the website that states the website is under a license, or some other official offer of the logo which someone could check to verify its license?
Re: [Standards] XMPP logo licensing
On 12/6/11 10:18 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Le 2011-12-06 10:13, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : On 12/6/11 6:34 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 01:50 -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi, is XMPP's logo licensed? Apparently a free license would help including it on Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo_XMPP.svg ). This page[1] it's designed by this designer[2], who has a BY-NC-ND badge at the bottom of the page. I don't know if that means that license applies to all logos or just the site. [1]: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/website-credits/ [2]: http://www.rajasandhu.com/ The whole xmpp.org website (including the logo) is under a slightly modified MIT license. The licensing used by the logo designer is irrelevant, since the XSF paid for the logo and can put it under whatever license it prefers. Peter Great, thanks Is there a page on the website that states the website is under a license, or some other official offer of the logo which someone could check to verify its license? http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/ If desired we can add a clarifying note about non-XEP files on the site. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] XMPP logo licensing
Le 2011-12-06 12:22, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : On 12/6/11 10:18 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Le 2011-12-06 10:13, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : On 12/6/11 6:34 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 01:50 -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi, is XMPP's logo licensed? Apparently a free license would help including it on Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo_XMPP.svg ). This page[1] it's designed by this designer[2], who has a BY-NC-ND badge at the bottom of the page. I don't know if that means that license applies to all logos or just the site. [1]: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/website-credits/ [2]: http://www.rajasandhu.com/ The whole xmpp.org website (including the logo) is under a slightly modified MIT license. The licensing used by the logo designer is irrelevant, since the XSF paid for the logo and can put it under whatever license it prefers. Peter Great, thanks Is there a page on the website that states the website is under a license, or some other official offer of the logo which someone could check to verify its license? http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/ If desired we can add a clarifying note about non-XEP files on the site. Peter The XSF IPR Policy says: This document defines the official policy of the XMPP Standards Foundation regarding intellectual property rights (IPR) pertaining to XMPP Extension Protocol specifications (XEPs). If that page is intended to licence something other than XEPs, I would say that is more than unclear. Please do let me know if a licence statement on the website or on the logo exists or is added. Thanks
Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0300 (Use of Cryptographic Hash Functions in XMPP)
Well, I think the problem that xep-300 pretends to fix, can easily be fixed by changing the XEPs that make use of hashes. If a XEP is using a hash algorithm that has been deprecated or is insecure, that XEP should be updated to mandate the discontinuation of such algorithm in clients. Hash algorithms don't deprecated as often, and using XEP-0300 would lead to a slower adoption of newer hash algo. For example: Client A sends file to Client B Client B is updated to use the most secure hash available Client A has a deprecated version of the hash Client B negotiates using XEP-300 and ends up using the less secure hash File transfer is successful This case would lead to a slower adoption of more secure technology. A negotiation makes sense in a lot of cases, for IBB or Socks5. But negotiating for hashes makes no sense because the implementation is as easy as changing a couple of lines of code. That's why it should be mandated to use the most secure and updated algorithm, and as I said, hashes don't deprecate frequently so that approach would be less inconvenient than xep-300. Now, I understand that there might be some ambiguity on which hashes are being use. I personally think that the attribute hash should never be used, instead md5 or sha1 should be used. P.S: I realized half way through that XEP-0300 is not negotiating, but instead is discovering support of hashes of the clients. Still, my point stands. It doesn't change anything. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: On 12/5/11 3:16 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: Version 0.2 of XEP-0300 (Use of Cryptographic Hash Functions in XMPP) has been released. Abstract: This document provides recommendations for the use of cryptographic hash functions in XMPP protocol extensions. Changelog: Updated to reflect initial analysis of existing XMPP protocol extensions. (psa) Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0300/diff/0.1/vs/0.2 URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html Folks, I started to look at XEP-0300 in relation to existing extensions. Please review my work so far, and do your own thinking about how useful (or not useful) XEP-0300 is. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -- Jefry Lagrange
[Standards] PubSub Collection Nodes (XEP-0248) question.
I’m taking a closer look at this XEP because I’m wanting to write an XEP using Collection Nodes, and I have a question: Why are Collection nodes not allowed to contain items? I see many use-cases for it and it doesn’t really introduce any additional complexity: by doing a disco#items query on a collection node the service would just return all the children nodes AND items. Items and nodes can easily be distinguished by looking at the presence or not of the “node” attribute in each item elements returned. This would allow a lot of nice possibilities, like a graph of messages (similar to a newsgroup message thread, with any level of depth). Is there a reason why it is not allowed in the current state of the XEP? -- Florent Le Coz
