Re: [Tools-discuss] Trial chat services: matrix and zulip

Jay Daley <> Mon, 05 October 2020 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4850F3A0FB8 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ll_3VtcxBuaw; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1263A0FB6; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75647EF9-C848-467D-93F6-E2C1CF1F88EB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:29:46 +1300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Matthew Hodgson <>, Tools Team Discussion <>
To: Dave Cridland <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Trial chat services: matrix and zulip
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:29:53 -0000

> On 6/10/2020, at 10:12 AM, Dave Cridland <> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 21:13, Jay Daley < <>> wrote:
> Dave
>> On 5/10/2020, at 11:05 PM, Dave Cridland < <>> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 20:51, Matthew Hodgson < <>> wrote:
>>   * By deriding the bridge, you're just harming both sides of it. IETF 
>> is less likely to use Matrix if they believe its XMPP bridge is as 
>> irredeemably bad as you say; and meanwhile it sounds like pure XMPP is 
>> off the cards anyway.
>> I certainly agree that the best course of action is to have a IM solution that is as compatible with XMPP as possible. XMPP has, I think, served the IETF community well over the past decade or so, and existing deployed solutions - like Meetecho and the IETF Jabber server itself - have worked with reasonable effectiveness. The XMPP community, vendors and independent developers, have offered help with improving this too (and many from the XMPP community have gone on to do wider work within the IETF world).
>> I, too, am unclear why we declare anything built privately on web technologies to be the moral equivalent of an open standard technology with specifications published through a recognised standards group and multiple interoperable implementations. One might as well use the criteria of "It's programmed in ANSI C".
>> But I'm also, I confess, bewildered that the stated aim of using the likes of Zulip (which I've never heard of before, sorry) and Slack is that public XMPP services are not easily found, and yet simultaneously "XMPP is off the cards", and no public accounts will be offered.
>> What's the blocker to offering accounts on the IETF XMPP server and hosting a web client?
> This was ruled out by previous IETF leadership and has remained the policy since.  Technically and operationally it would be trivial to add.
> I proposed the addition of user accounts a few months ago to the IESG and the Tools Team in order to address the feedback from the IETF 107 post-meeting survey, and the main concern expressed was that they would appear to be "official" jabber accounts and therefore representative of the IETF.  By contrast the zulip and matrix instances are specifically named as trials and therefore do not incur that risk.  
> So the problem with using an existing service is that it may be inadvertently considered an official stance of the IETF despite an official statement to the contrary, whereas explicitly ruling it out, while that is a stated official stance of the IETF, is not to be considered to mean anything? I'm so glad you have made this crystal clear to me.
> It is possible to place an XMPP service on a domain other than <>, such as, oh, I don't know, perhaps " <>", if the idea is really to avoid the impression that the IETF's use of its own protocols is somehow an approach worth following.

I will let the Tools Team respond to that, other than to note that exactly the same point could have been reached without the sarcasm.


> As that proposal was being considered, the community introduced the IETF Slack space and there were discussions in the SHMOO WG about this whole area.  In that context it did not seem appropriate to make such a change as that might be seen as acting inconsistently with the emerging community process.
> I would be interested in views on this.
> Jay
>> Dave.
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list
>> <>
>> <>
>> Please report <> and <>
>> bugs at <>
>> or send email to <>
>> Please report <> bugs at
>> <>
>> or send email to <>
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> <>
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director