Re: [Standards] IETF 89 and the XMPP WG meeting - are you going?
Yusuke, I have created an account for you and a temporary password has been sent to you via email. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Yusuke DOI wrote: > (2014-02-13 02:39), Mike Taylor wrote: > >> Please do list your name on the wiki page if you are going so we can >> start getting organized for this. >> > > I'll do, but I need Wiki account to do so. > May I ask somebody to create my account on Wiki? > (I prefer doi, ydoi, or d0i as my username) > > Thanks, > > Yusuke > > -- Bear b...@xmpp.org (email) bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email) b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email) http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog) PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] Proposed conversation about Board election
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:18 PM, bear wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Dave Cridland and I discussed about having a conversation about the >>> Board election. >>> >>> Why have the conversation? It is an opportunity for you to talk with >>> the candidates and each other. What can the conversation be about? For >>> example, the was a message about the Board (see http://mail.jabber.org/* >>> *pipermail/standards/2013-**September/027986.html<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-September/027986.html>). >>> I personally believe that it would be good if there was more openess, >>> i.e. you get to know when there are Board meetings, what will be discussed, >>> and what decisions were taken. >>> >>> Regards, >>> S. Moonesamy >>> >>> >> If you have questions about the Board or what it does (or does not do) >> then please ask in the Members list. All of the board members are present >> but I cannot say how many of the board members actively read the Standards >> list. >> >> The board members are all XSF members and as such are available and open >> as the XSF is - if something needed being called to attention then please >> do bring it up. If you would like to "have a conversation" with the board, >> then please send an email to Members list asking for a meeting or to find >> out when the next meeting is - unlike the Council, the Board does not meet >> on a regular schedule. >> >> > Applicants to the Board, like SM, can't post to members@. Our bylaws > don't require Board to be members. I don't think use of this list was > inappropriate in this case (or, at least, I can't think of a better list). > > /K > oh, good point. I really did not consider anyone wanting to run for the Board who had already not been a member of the XSF. -- Bear b...@xmpp.org (email) bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email) b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email) http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog) PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] Proposed conversation about Board election
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > Dave Cridland and I discussed about having a conversation about the Board > election. > > Why have the conversation? It is an opportunity for you to talk with the > candidates and each other. What can the conversation be about? For > example, the was a message about the Board (see http://mail.jabber.org/** > pipermail/standards/2013-**September/027986.html<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-September/027986.html>). > I personally believe that it would be good if there was more openess, > i.e. you get to know when there are Board meetings, what will be discussed, > and what decisions were taken. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > If you have questions about the Board or what it does (or does not do) then please ask in the Members list. All of the board members are present but I cannot say how many of the board members actively read the Standards list. The board members are all XSF members and as such are available and open as the XSF is - if something needed being called to attention then please do bring it up. If you would like to "have a conversation" with the board, then please send an email to Members list asking for a meeting or to find out when the next meeting is - unlike the Council, the Board does not meet on a regular schedule. -- Bear b...@xmpp.org (email) bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email) b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email) http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog) PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] XEP-0133 : Service Administration [Error : item-not-found] for get-online-users-list
This question would be better asked in the JDEV mailing list where more
developers are active.
See http://xmpp.org/participate/discuss-xmpp/ for all of the mailing lists
and what their focus is.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:13 AM, mayur narole wrote:
> Hello,
> Can anyone please help me out from this
>
>
>
> On 28 August 2013 12:07, mayur narole wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> I am using 4.20 Get List of Online Users Example 67. But I am getting
>> error 404 item-not-found.
>>
>> > id='{$id}'
>> to='rattlor-local'
>> type='set'
>> xml:lang='en'>
>> >action='execute'
>>node='
>> http://jabber.org/protocol/admin#get-online-users-list'/>
>>
>> I am using this code. Is anybody know what I am missing.
>>
>> Or this service is removed from XEP-0133 extension.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Mayur S Narole,
>> Mob . 8956682454
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mayur S Narole,
> Mob . 8956682454
>
--
Bear
b...@xmpp.org (email)
bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email)
b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)
PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] SASL + OAuth
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 17:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 12/8/11 3:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Have any server or client developers here considered adding support for >> the emerging SASL mechanism for OAuth? >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth >> >> That would seem to open up some interesting authentication possibilities >> (e.g., integration with various web apps)... > > Potentially more motivation: OAuth2 is used in the XMPP implementation > of Windows Live... > > http://the.taoofmac.com/space/links/2011/12/15/0856 that's very cool! > > /psa > -- Bear b...@xmpp.org (email) bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email) b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email) http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog) PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] throttling
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 19:19, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 13 February 2011 00:09, Justin Karneges > wrote: >> On Saturday 12 February 2011 12:14:34 Matthew Wild wrote: >>> > >>> I'm not convinced that we need a solution for this (I'm not sure if in >>> the real world, a server would actually stop reading from a client for >>> 60s or more). However if consensus is that this is something we need >>> to fix, I think Justin's on the right track and I wouldn't oppose >>> standardising "whacks" (at last!). >> >> jabberd1 penalizes for over a minute, which is the inspiration for this >> discussion. Newer servers are not nearly as aggressive. But, from where I >> sit, those design decisions seem arbitrary and there's nothing to say that >> other servers couldn't adopt similar policies. >> > > That's as may be, but I still lean towards the onus being on the > server developers to ensure they don't create wacky situations like > this. Still, as I said, I'm not against a spec. > > Maybe we just want a whole informational XEP on how clients/servers > should detect broken streams correctly, and how to throttle with > minimal chance of breaking things. oh double +1 triple-like someone-give-me-a-heart-button This would also form the basis for an conformity validator > > Regards, > Matthew > -- Bear b...@xmpp.org (email) bea...@gmail.com (xmpp, email) b...@code-bear.com (xmpp, email) http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog) PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
Re: [Standards] XEP-0277 "Microblogging over XMPP" and the Atom data format
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:03, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently, I have been working on an XMPP gateway (XEP-0100 "Gateway > Interaction" style) that exposes Twitter functionality in a way compliant > with XEP-0277 "Microblogging over XMPP". While coding, a number of questions > and remarks related to this last XEP popped up. > > The XEP specifies that pubsub to publish and receive microblog posts (the > XEP does indicate that for posting, an alternative interface can be used). > The pubsub items used in the examples are using an Atom-based data format. > > My first question: the XEP does not specify explicitly that the Atom data > format MUST/SHOULD be used. Can other formats be used as well? I feel that > there is room for interpretation here. This can lead to implementations that > are XEP compliant, but are not compatible with other implementations. Should > the Microblogging XEP specify more exact what data format should be used? I think that would be a good change as Atom has become the default canonical format for this realm. > Why was the Atom-based data format chosen? In my opinion, there are a number > of characteristics that do not make it "fit" to the purpose: Atom has been chosen, from what I can gather and also from my own opinion, because it is now the format used for ActivityStreams, PubSubHubbub, OStatus and the majority of the large consumers and providers of feed data. It is also a "proper" XML format which gives it a lot of advantages in the XMPP world, but that's secondary to the prior reasons IMO. > Atom requires a title for each entry. In the context of a microblog, this > requirement doesn't make much sense to me. The examples in the XEP use the > atom:title element to hold the text of the post. I would argue that this is > done more appropriately in a atom:content element instead. In the case of a post or update that does not have a Title per se, the Atom spec says that the content of the post should be placed in the Title element and the Content element should be empty. This rule is also listed as a MUST in the ActivityStreams spec: http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/activity-schema-01.html#article > Atom requires a unique identifier (atom:id) for each entry. Is this > appropriate in a use case where content is being created by a client (as > opposed to created content being distributed by the service provider)? In my > gateway implementation, I can't think of a unique identifier that I can use > when a client is generating a microblog post on the legacy service. Instead, > the unique identifier is generated by the legacy domain. I feel that this > argument holds true, even in a more generic context than my Legacy Gateway > implementation: it is not uncommon for service providers to generate and add > a unique identifier to an object created as a result of a user request. By > using the Atom data format, the XEP is less flexible. The unique identifier in your example would be something based on date and time of receipt or generation of the post *and* you should then include a Source element that outlines what the legacy system is using to identify the item, including a URL to the item if possible. In general anything that flows thru a Gateway should do this, see the Salmon Protocol and also the Atom Threading protocol http://salmon-protocol.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/draft-panzer-salmon-00.html http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4685 > Atom requires an author for each entry. This appears redundant to me - the > pep service itself is related to the author, and posts on a microblog are > not likely to be authored by someone else than the owner of the blog. > Nonetheless, Atom spec requires this element to exist. The Author element is present to allow for downstream consumers of the Atom item to be able to have a URL that points to the author without having to discover thru web crawling what that author is. At the minimum you just need to provide a URL to the identity url of whoever generated the post. > That's what I ran into so far. I'd be happy to receive your insights, > comments and remarks. IMO the reason to use Atom boils down to the fact that a *lot* of activity by some very bright and active people have focused on Atom, with some of them extending Atom but that in itself is another reason to use it, and they are now generating content that could easily flow thru your gateway with minimal processing and still retain a lot of the metadata from the source while allowing you to add your own metadata. > > Regards, > > Guus > p.s. my background in all of this is very behind the scenes and I was working on quite a few Atom based services at Seesmic before they pulled the plug on the project :( I'm hoping some of the others in the XSF who are Atom g
