Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Not XEP-0277 but most pubsub clients should be able to use it at a very basic level. There are many bits that are 'extra' however. I'd like to see Buddycloud being as compatable as possible with 'standard' XMPP with its own sugar. On 17 Dec 2014 23:05, "Goffi" wrote: > On 17/12/2014 22:20, Simon

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17/12/2014 22:20, Simon Tennant wrote: - we (developers of "Salut à Toi", http://www.salut-a-toi.org) an a few other projects (namely Movim http://movim.eu, Jappix http://www.jappix.org) or developers (notabily Sergey Dobrov is working on these issues too) are working on an XMP

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

> > - we (developers of "Salut à Toi", http://www.salut-a-toi.org) an a few > other projects (namely Movim http://movim.eu, Jappix http://www.jappix.org) > or developers (notabily Sergey Dobrov is working on these issues too) are > working on an XMPP based decentralized (micro)blogging platforms. >

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17/12/2014 18:10, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: I’m glad this thread seems now to be focused more Dave’s concerns with the ProtoXEP itself and how the authors might cure these concerns than discussions of general XMPP access control issues. I’m going to try focus all my comments on the ProtoXEP its

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17/12/2014 18:06, Dave Cridland wrote: OK, I entirely forgot about that. And in fairness, I think Section 6 is reasonable; I think Sections 4 and 5 are the problem. Ok, it become more precise, I'll work on it This document is not about building an external PEP service; this document - or

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

I’m glad this thread seems now to be focused more Dave’s concerns with the ProtoXEP itself and how the authors might cure these concerns than discussions of general XMPP access control issues. I’m going to try focus all my comments on the ProtoXEP itself, your specific concerns of it, and what

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17 December 2014 at 16:14, Goffi wrote: > > What we have, currently, is a proposal for a XEP which describes a >> authorization model operating solely on stanzas, and applying >> rights based on identities, on the granularity of namespace and IQ type. >> > > That's not true, it also operate on

Re: [Standards] OTR

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07-11-14 22:16, Bartosz Małkowski wrote: Bartosz and Sam, > I'm in too. I haven't experience with writing xep, but I'm > interested in securing communication. Do you have a github account? If so, can you mail me your GitHub names, then I open a

Re: [Standards] OTR

On 05-12-14 11:24, Goffi wrote: Hi, > Is there any update on this ? Actually the situation is not really good > today: > some client encode XML in OTR, other don't, there is no way to advertise OTR > support with discovery and there is an OTR specific advertisement way (with > whitespace-tagg

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17/12/2014 15:53, Dave Cridland wrote: It's the only tool I have to prevent this becoming a XEP prior to the discussion. The XEPs was submitted months ago (first mention on standard@ in may !), we could have this discussion before. What we have, currently, is a proposal for a XEP whic

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Wow, I wasn't expecting this going in such a long thread. On 16/12/2014 19:24, Dave Cridland wrote: That's actually what I'm trying to avoid; we currently have lots of fractional solutions, and no real standard. Trying to do thing in a too generic way resolving all potential use cases can lea

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17 December 2014 at 13:24, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga > wrote: >> >> While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take >> a step back and consider model and terminology iss

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 2014-12-17 14:24, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > [..] > It seems you are holding this ProtoXEP hostage for a general discussion > and possibly more (“a better system”?). Hi, I haven't fully digested all words in this thread. However, I think I understand the general idea of the arguments being made by

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga > wrote: > While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a > step back and consider model and terminology issues, in your latest commen

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a > step back and consider model and terminology issues, in your latest > comments, it seems more that you want the authors to adopt a this model and > terminology you or

Re: [Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

On 16 Dec 2014, at 18:02, Goffi wrote: > I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject. For what it’s worth, having implemented ACL ‘stuff’ in an XMPP server, and seeing how this has grown over the years, I think standardising this with a global framework would be something of an under

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:06, kwaye kant wrote: > Thanks Cramer, > So I can not implement the node-xmpp-server and try to connect to with a Java > code line. Because the node-xmpp-server does not expose its services to > consume as a webservice. I think I can understand from now why my mate > could

Re: [Standards] [Council] Minutes 2014-12-03

On 8 Dec 2014, at 10:09, Kevin Smith wrote: > 4) Accept http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/namespace-delegation.html > as Experimental? > Dave and Fippo +1, Lance, Kev and Matt to vote onlist I have a few quibbles here, but don’t see a reason to block publication. > 5) Accept http://xmpp.org/exten

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

Thanks Cramer, So I can not implement the node-xmpp-server and try to connect to with a Java code line. Because the node-xmpp-server does not expose its services to consume as a webservice. I think I can understand from now why my mate couldn't argue a lot :) Let me have a look on the ready-to-go s

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

> On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:36, kwaye kant wrote: > > Hi Cramer, > Does that mean either I use NodeJs-Xmpp or NodeJs-SocketIO ? You can use whatever you want off-course :-) If you want to use javascript on the server: use NodeJS. If you prefer python, ruby, Java, C, erlang or any other language o

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

I have doubt. In every link, the approach is browser base. And what about a native programming language, Java ? I do understand there are librairies that can be used to simplify things. But before using one of them I wish to understand how it works. Thanks for you comments. 2014-12-17 9:37 GMT+01

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

Hi Cramer, Does that mean either I use NodeJs-Xmpp or NodeJs-SocketIO ? Thanks for the link especialy node-xmpp-server and node-xmpp-client. 2014-12-17 9:28 GMT+01:00 Kevin Smith : > > On 17 Dec 2014, at 08:18, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) > wrote: > > Maybe you can find some relevant information in the

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

Further to the other comment, you suggested that implementing your own system, designed from scratch, would be easier than implementing a system which adheres to XMPP. This is absolutely correct. XMPP is not a trivial protocol to implement. It's possible to build something that will work to some d

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

On 17 Dec 2014, at 08:18, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) wrote: > Maybe you can find some relevant information in the answers on this > stackoverflow question that seems to reflect your question quite well! > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5893075/nodejs-vs-xmpp-advantage-and-disavantage > >

Re: [Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

Hi Kwaye, Welcome to the list. NodeJS is a runtime that allows you to run Javascript code on a server. XMPP is a protocol that allows you to send messages between entities on a network. So these 2 do not compare. You can build an XMPP endpoint using NodeJS if you want. There is an implementati

[Standards] XMPP or NodeJS ?

Hello to all, I had an idea to built an instant messaging application like WhatsApp. My research had oriented me to xmpp protocol. But this night I was having a discussion with a mate and he seemed to warn me to use nodeJs instead of Xmpp protocol. He was not able to explain to me the main differe