[Tools-discuss] matrix tests
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 11 December 2020 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44ECF3A0ED6 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:52:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0RkIKw1ztWGO for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A8F93A0A9C for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6A0BE2C for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:52:44 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYCFullp3TtG for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:52:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE8FCBE20 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:52:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1607719963; bh=AbOz37m7ovTl0qpOl42tvJGz5PCkNuYXPGOY7LS9bxA=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=zG2ubvnCedWPPRE010De8J4HfKbg453XzkeR1ChdO5ZIRXvqpZsnMDnNd0qhCbS3H oOkQ5xNc5vpJCQhJzqnQeo2zgGLJHoVEoHsrku2WyxtQsRhc33rYcgrghSxSL6XSFZ 6OG8hAWzp9z9dhEs0+I/MSxNE0DavEsESywQ0A5A=
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <e547d7be-8838-ce7f-fad5-61af474f7d12@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:52:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VRraKZSNSVfds6jWFjVb148LFetUuv14W"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/ADkfhDxhdErqsJPO7Z1pnAgZzyY>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:52:49 -0000
Hiya, I've used jabber at IETFs for ages. I don't find that at all hard. (But my jabber accounts while old, seem to be working fine.) I've run my own matrix server for the last few years for non-IETF purposes. I appreciate the ability to use matrix as mobile clients for matrix are more widely available and more up to date than for jabber. That (better clients) might be more noticeably beneficial when we get back to f2f meetings, as in WFM-mode, I have plenty of screen real-estate. For IEF109 I connected to the IETF rooms using my normal matrix account from my own server. It's very good that can be done. I had expected there to be a matrix room corresponding to each jabber room but I didn't investigate much due to the TZ issues and the fact that jabber was fine. It didn't occur to me to create any matrix rooms. If it had, I'm not sure if that'd have been useful but I can imagine it being so in future, e.g. for a bar bof. Before that'd be a standard procedure I'd like to understand the duration for which any such rooms might last, how closed/open they may be etc. I think the main feature in matrix clients that I like that beats jabber is the ability to edit messages after they've been sent. I'm not sure how that'd pan out with the jabber logs, but am happy to do a test if that's useful. I'm also happy to connect and play about in general if that's helpful, just ping me. Whatever experiments are done, I think an equivalent to the jabber logs will be needed if matrix or another scheme is to be used for more than experiments. Cheers, S.
- [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Matthew Wild
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Glen
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Michael Richardson
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] matrix tests Matthew Hodgson