Subject: [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:47:35 +0100

Agenda [1] is same as last week - going through the
actions [2,3] and issues list [4].

Nice quiet week on the list so far - good to see that:-)

Barry will be in the chair tomorrow.

Stephen.

[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q3/006018.html
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q3/006151.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/dkim/
[4]
https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format=

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:52:24 -0700

Just as a note, I'm becoming more convinced that jabber.org accounts are
hosed when it comes to connecting to jabber.ietf.org... try making a 
different
account on some other server if you're having problems. Eliot pointed me
to jabber.psg.com, but I don't know if it's polite to extend the cattle 
call :)

       Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:23:45 +0200

If you're going to use jabber.psg.com, please send an email to Randy
Bush saying who you are.

Eliot

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:32:01 -0700

At 4:01 PM +0100 10/5/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>There's a list on jabber.org somewhere.

If you have a free Gmail account, your email address is your Jabber account.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:28:24 -0700

> to jabber.psg.com, but I don't know if it's polite to extend the cattle 

It is easy to forget that jabber.org is an free/non-advertising -- ie, 
donated -- community service, rather than something intended for 
mission-critical use.

Indeed, it does seem like we need to find other venue(s) for user access.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:40:10 -0700

On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
> Yep, that seems to be the source of the problem.
>
> For next week, I'd encourage folks to find a different
> authentication server (if that's what its called).
>

Given that jabber appears to be not ready for
prime time, in oh so many ways, has anyone
considered using a more reliable technology?

IRC, maybe?

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:52:45 -0700

> considered using a more reliable technology?

Sorry, Steve, but I do not know of any problems with Jabber/xmpp 
technology, and its overall track record for IETF use has been 
excellent.  Further the range of free client software seems quite good.

The problem we are having is operational, with a donated service.  (And, 
by the way, it's rarely been a problem during IETF week, so this is not 
a case of reaching some sort of limit.)

If you know of other problems, what are they?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:02:51 +0100

> a case of reaching some sort of limit.)

Tend to agree. Jabber during IETF meetings is generally v. good
and it certainly saved this WG a bunch of time when we used it in
the spring.

Maybe someone needs to donate a bit more kit to whoever runs
jabber.org?

But there are a bunch more servers out there, so we're not bound
by jabber.org once we know to avoid it.

S.

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:10:49 -0700

On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> The problem we are having is operational, with a donated service.   
> (And, by the way, it's rarely been a problem during IETF week, so  
> this is not a case of reaching some sort of limit.)
>

I keep seeing reports here of people being unable to
join the jabber chats.

Previous attempts by other groups I've been involved
with to use jabber have had those too, along with
people being unable to create jabber accounts.

(I've also not found a decent jabber client for OS X
that's stable and has the functionality I'd expect.
Suggestions welcome.)

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:28:43 -0700

> that's stable and has the functionality I'd expect.

I'm using Adium which after I figured out that jabber.org was the
root cause, worked fine.

       Mike

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:51:32 -0400

I've been using Exodus for this IETF Jabber exercise.  The first time
you reported a problem several weeks ago, you indicated using a
different server.  I randomly selected one, borderlinenormal.com,
created a login account, and have not had a problem joining the DKIM
room.

---
HLS

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:06:54 -0400

> If you know of other problems, what are they?
I don't know what happened here, but I've seen other Jabber problems at
close hand.  The problems tend to involve synchronization between the two
servers.

If you have an account at jabber.org and try to talk to someone (or a
chat room) at jabber.ietf.org, the data flows from you to jabber.org, and
thence over a multiplexed channel to jabber.ietf.org.  From there, it
would go to your correspondent, or to the chat room server.  But
sometimes, due to buggy software, the two servers get out of sync, or one
will think the connection is up while the other thinks it's down.
There's not much that can be done then, with the servers I've played
with, except to restart one or both of them.

On a more systemic note, I've seen some servers that don't do well with
SRV records.  Yes, I know they should.... 

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:08:17 -0400

> If you're going to use jabber.psg.com, please send an email to Randy
Here's what Randy said:

  actually, no email needed.  jabber tells me.

  what i would ask is that your info on the jabber server, i.e. your vcard
  or whatever your client calls it, have at a minimum your email address.
  this will enable us to contact you by other means should there be
  problems.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:41:23 -0400

Ichat works very nicely for jabber, use it all the time

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:11 PM
To: ietf-dkim WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:33:18 -0700

On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:

> (I've also not found a decent jabber client for OS X that's stable  
> and has the functionality I'd expect. Suggestions welcome.)

Adium seems to falter at times doing in-band registration.  This can  
be a problem when looking for a new access server.  Psi might be a  
solution, but then this client does not support room passwords when  
needed.  For the talk.google.com server, registration is out-of-band  
which overcomes the in-band limitation with Adium.  Perhaps some  
issues may be related to support of port 5222-3 TLS-SSL?

-Doug

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:01:42 +0100

S.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:16:26 -0700

> Ichat works very nicely for jabber, use it all the time

How do you join a group chat in a chat room with iChat?

-Doug

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:37:20 -0400

All,
my bad,
we use an ad hoc group chat for jabber
**************************************
You can start a chat session that includes several people, each of whom sees all messages from everyone who is participating.

Choose File > New Chat.
Click the Add (+) button at the bottom of the Participants list and choose each buddy that you want to invite to the group chat.
Type a message, then press Return to send the invitation.

You can also start a group text chat by holding down the Command key and selecting the people you want to chat with. Once you've selected your buddies, click the A button at the bottom of your Buddy List to start the text chat.

Those who accept your invitation will be able to send text messages to everyone else in the chat session. You will see all the messages they send, and they will see all of yours.

See also
group chat
*******************************
I do this with other jabber participants not as a formal "join group"
thanks,
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thu 10/5/2006 2:16 PM
To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC

-Doug

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:17:23 +0200

> How do you join a group chat in a chat room with iChat?

First be sure to have a jabber account up and running.  Then "File -> Go
to Chat -> [email-masked]"

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:29:08 -0700

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Many of the issues are awaiting confirmation from the chairs that I
> should close them.  In some cases this is due simply to an apparent
> consensus on the jabber session that no change should be made, but that
> it would be confirmed on the mailing list.

Eliot,

Thanks for the follow-up and clarification.

What items are in need of working group discussion?

That's what I meant to focus on in my note.  On reviewing the items on 
the issues list, I could not figure out what actually needed discussion, 
rather than already having action delegated.

In other words, what were we going to try to make progress on, in the 
jabber session?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:02:11 +0200

Disclaimer: this is really the province of the chairs, but as an
individual, here is my view:

> What items are in need of working group discussion?
Here is a summary from rt.psg.com and some Eliot commentary

1201:  PROPOSED CLOSED && NO FURTHER DISCUSISON
1356:  OPEN - no next action listed
1357:  Mike to clarify text
1358:  PROPOSE REJECT - consensus on jabber not to proceed
1359:  PROPOSED CLOSED - long jabber log
1360:  OPEN "heading toward close/reject" with discussion on the list
1361:  CLOSE/ACCEPT/MOOT since the entire section involved is disappearing
1362:  OPEN awaiting resolution of 1357
1363:  ACCEPTED, Dave to Assist Mike with text.
1364:  ACCEPT - Mike to confirm that this area is covered.  Probably an
email to the list is in order.
1365:  OPEN (half of it, anyway)
1366:  consensus to REJECT on the jabber.
1367:  consensus to REJECT on the jabber.
1369:  consensus to REJECT on jabber

So, by my reading, 1357 and 1365 are open and not blocked, while others
that are open are awaiting some action.  Barring an action from the
chairs I will close all those that are "PROPOSE REJECT" or "PROPOSE
CLOSED" in the next day or so (they can always be reopened if the chairs
find I've erred).

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:44:59 +0100

Thanks Eliot,

Unless someone can point at something in the record
contradicting these dispositions please act on them,
say at the end of your Monday.

People can verify Eliot's conclusions, and/or answer Dave's
question themselves by looking through the summaries of the
jabber logs that I sent after each jabber chat.

Stephen.