Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Jonas Schäfer]

On Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2020 17:14:19 CEST Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> In order to find a meeting time, please fill out the Dudle at the following
> link if you intend to participate:
> 
> https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/WjeASA5f4A/

I just realized I didn’t give a timezone. I planned the slots with CEST 
(UTC+02:00) in mind, since I know that a bunch of you are in or close to that 
timezone. So let’s go with that.

Normally I go with UTC. I don’t know what went wrong there in my head. Sorry 
for the confusion.

kind regards,
Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Jonas Schäfer]

Hi everyone,

In order to find a meeting time, please fill out the Dudle at the following 
link if you intend to participate:

https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/WjeASA5f4A/

Each slot is meant to be at least two hours long. Please put your availability 
in there. If you don’t feel comfortable with sharing your availability 
publicly, feel free to either use an alias (mind that this possibly won’t keep 
you anonymous) or send me an email directly with your availability info so 
that I can take it into account in the final scheduling decision.

(also, the poll got quite unclear because I wanted to give a two-week time 
window and quite a few options, I hope you can manage. If you have a better 
tool we can use for this, let me know.)

kind regards,
Jonas


On Samstag, 9. Mai 2020 18:35:30 CEST Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> In light of yet another comment-less expiry of a Last Call for XEP-0280, we
> came to the conclusion that we need focused work on Message Routing rules.
> 
> While I won’t participate directly, I’m going to organize this sprint so
> that the participants can concentrate on the actual standards and
> implementation work. The idea of a sprint came in light of the great
> success which is the new OMEMO version, and we hope to be able to
> accumulate a similar success in the context of message routing.
> 
> The goal of the sprint is to work out corner cases of routing of message
> stanzas of all types in the presence of multiple different devices/resources
> on a single account, maybe not all of them online at the same time. I.e.
> the roles of XEP-0280, the rules in XEP-0313 and of course XEP-0409.
> 
> Due to the state of the world, the sprint shall take place remotely. The
> remote platform will probably be one or another Jitsi Meet instance [1].
> 
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are
> interested in participating within a week. Next week around this time,
> we’ll start agreeing on a timeslot and work out the meeting details.
> 
> If you cannot or do not want to participate, but still know of important
> and/ or easily overlooked routing cases which should be taken into
> consideration, feel free to reply with that information to this message on
> the list.
> 
> kind regards,
> Jonas
> 
>[1]: Unfortunately, Jitsi Meet has multiple accessibility issues. One is
> the fact that it still won’t work reliably with non-Chromium
> browsers. The other is hearsay I got from visually impaired people that the
> UI is not usable for them. Also unfortunately, I don’t know of another
> platform we could use without sponsorship. If you have suggestions for a
> more accessible alternative or want to participate in the sprint and would
> be hindered by the use of Jitsi Meet, please contact me privately and, if
> you wish, GPG encrypted for your privacy.
> 
> Please keep the discussion about the meeting platform off-list
> though, it is not on-topic for standards@.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Kim Alvefur]

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:35:30PM +0200, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are
> interested in participating within a week.

I'm interested.

-- 
Zash


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Georg Lukas]

* Jonas Schäfer  [2020-05-09 18:36]:
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are interested
> in participating within a week.

I'm interested!

The rules for Carbons, MAM, CSI and Push are different, partially
implicit (payload), partially explicit (hints). We need to fix those.

Here is a short list of issues that I am aware of:

- what are the "persistent" messages, which need to be stored
  permanently and sent to all clients?

- what are "urgent" messages that need to flush CSI and/or cause an
  "urgent" Push notification?

- what should qualify as "payload elements typically used in IM" (re
  XEP-0280 §6.1; related to "persistent")

- we need a good-enough list of relevant but body-less IM payload
  classes, like:

  - MUC invitations (direct, mediated)
  - Jingle Call messages (looks like there was some activity here!)
  - chat state notifications (those should become presence some day)
  - chat markers
  - XEP-0184 receipts (type=normal, anyone?)
  - ...?

  (There is XEP-0226 which would profit from getting updated, and which
  might serve as the master registry of IM payloads for Carbons and MAM)

- (how) should we persist/carbon-copy message errors?

- what to do with negative priority clients?

- what to do with system-generated messages like MAM, Carbon wrappers?

- how can we get Carbons from a bridge in a secure way? (when you login
  to Signagram from XMPP, and write a message from the native Signagram
  client)

- what non-IM uses of XMPP are we breaking/affecting?


I think there are two conceptual parts that we need to cover:

a) Legacy routing rules (we won't get rid of them any time soon)

What are the rules that we need to integrate into Carbons, MAM, CSI and
Push to cover the currently existing corner cases?

Those are the same rules that we will need in the IM-NG legacy interop.

b) IM-NG-only business rules

I think that IM-NG replaces MAM and Carbons well enough, but:

- use hints or some other way to encode urgency, persistence, ...?

  - copy,archive --> send to bare JID
  - no-copy,no-archive --> send to full JID
  - copy,no-archive --> type=headline to bare JID
  - no-copy,archive --> forbidden for good reason!
  - urgent --> ??? (this has implications on E2EE, also should this
really be driven by the sender?)

- could/should a server filter based on client capabilities? i.e. client
  does not advertise CSN support, server strips CSN payloads, drops
  CSN-only messages (maybe orthogonal to IM-NG?)


Georg


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for organising this. I'd like to participate in this sprint. I also
have the following corner case.

Routing a message to bare JID when the recipient is connected but didn't
send the initial presence stanzas yet.
Currently our server, MongooseIM delivers messages addressed to bare JID to
all online/available user's sessions. The session is considered
online/available only after sending the initial presence.

Best regards
Michal Piotrowski
Software Architect at https://www.erlang-solutions.com/
email: michal.piotrow...@erlang-solutions.com
skype: twitter/github/medium: michalwski



On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 18:35, Jonas Schäfer  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In light of yet another comment-less expiry of a Last Call for XEP-0280,
> we
> came to the conclusion that we need focused work on Message Routing rules.
>
> While I won’t participate directly, I’m going to organize this sprint so
> that
> the participants can concentrate on the actual standards and
> implementation
> work. The idea of a sprint came in light of the great success which is the
> new
> OMEMO version, and we hope to be able to accumulate a similar success in
> the
> context of message routing.
>
> The goal of the sprint is to work out corner cases of routing of message
> stanzas of all types in the presence of multiple different
> devices/resources
> on a single account, maybe not all of them online at the same time. I.e.
> the
> roles of XEP-0280, the rules in XEP-0313 and of course XEP-0409.
>
> Due to the state of the world, the sprint shall take place remotely. The
> remote platform will probably be one or another Jitsi Meet instance [1].
>
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are
> interested
> in participating within a week. Next week around this time, we’ll start
> agreeing on a timeslot and work out the meeting details.
>
> If you cannot or do not want to participate, but still know of important
> and/
> or easily overlooked routing cases which should be taken into
> consideration,
> feel free to reply with that information to this message on the list.
>
> kind regards,
> Jonas
>
>[1]: Unfortunately, Jitsi Meet has multiple accessibility issues. One is
> the fact that it still won’t work reliably with non-Chromium
> browsers.
> The other is hearsay I got from visually impaired people that the
> UI
> is not usable for them. Also unfortunately, I don’t know of another
> platform we could use without sponsorship. If you have suggestions
> for
> a more accessible alternative or want to participate in the sprint
> and
> would be hindered by the use of Jitsi Meet, please contact me
> privately and, if you wish, GPG encrypted for your privacy.
>
> Please keep the discussion about the meeting platform off-list
> though,
> it is not on-topic for standards@
> .___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>

-- 


Code Sync & Erlang Solutions Conferences 


*
*

Code BEAM 
Lite ITA - Bologna: Rescheduled

Code BEAM STO - Stockholm: Rescheduled


ElixirConf EU - Warsaw: 7-8 October 2020

Code Mesh - London: 5-6 November 
2020

*
*

Erlang Solutions cares about your data and privacy; please find 
all details about the basis for communicating with you and the way we 
process your data in our Privacy Policy 
. You can update your 
email preferences or opt-out from receiving Marketing emails here 
.

___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Sprint for Message Routing

[Andrew Nenakhov]

Could you please list the 'corner cases' you want to work out in XEP-0280?
We use it *heavily* and so far are not aware of any problems with it. If
someone would want to find a working and clear XEP, 0280 would be one of
them. No?

сб, 9 мая 2020 г. в 21:35, Jonas Schäfer :

> Hi all,
>
> In light of yet another comment-less expiry of a Last Call for XEP-0280,
> we
> came to the conclusion that we need focused work on Message Routing rules.
>
> While I won’t participate directly, I’m going to organize this sprint so
> that
> the participants can concentrate on the actual standards and
> implementation
> work. The idea of a sprint came in light of the great success which is the
> new
> OMEMO version, and we hope to be able to accumulate a similar success in
> the
> context of message routing.
>
> The goal of the sprint is to work out corner cases of routing of message
> stanzas of all types in the presence of multiple different
> devices/resources
> on a single account, maybe not all of them online at the same time. I.e.
> the
> roles of XEP-0280, the rules in XEP-0313 and of course XEP-0409.
>
> Due to the state of the world, the sprint shall take place remotely. The
> remote platform will probably be one or another Jitsi Meet instance [1].
>
> Please reply to this message on-list or privately to me if you are
> interested
> in participating within a week. Next week around this time, we’ll start
> agreeing on a timeslot and work out the meeting details.
>
> If you cannot or do not want to participate, but still know of important
> and/
> or easily overlooked routing cases which should be taken into
> consideration,
> feel free to reply with that information to this message on the list.
>
> kind regards,
> Jonas
>
>[1]: Unfortunately, Jitsi Meet has multiple accessibility issues. One is
> the fact that it still won’t work reliably with non-Chromium
> browsers.
> The other is hearsay I got from visually impaired people that the
> UI
> is not usable for them. Also unfortunately, I don’t know of another
> platform we could use without sponsorship. If you have suggestions
> for
> a more accessible alternative or want to participate in the sprint
> and
> would be hindered by the use of Jitsi Meet, please contact me
> privately and, if you wish, GPG encrypted for your privacy.
>
> Please keep the discussion about the meeting platform off-list
> though,
> it is not on-topic for standards@
> .___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>


-- 
Andrew Nenakhov
CEO, redsolution, OÜ
https://redsolution.com 
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___