Gajim - 2019-02-20


  1. oli will gajim also use the public channel and private group chat distinction? (i hope not)
  2. wurstsalat What are your points against that approach?
  3. oli it doesn't make sense. and in every language that words have slightly different meanings. and it's confusing to introduce another word that was not used very often for MUC
  4. wurstsalat https://conference.gajim.org:5281/pastebin/f5b58b2f-09a3-4f21-bed7-7ed0502f589b
  5. oli i cannot read that in firefox mobile. maybe later.
  6. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9545 >: #9545: < Notification of '@ all' mentions >
  7. bot Daniel Brötzmann closed an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9554 >: #9554: < Can't change font size in Windows 10 x64 >
  8. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9541 >: #9541: < Crash Report Unable to run gpg, FileNotFoundError: [WinError 2] The system cannot find the file specified >
  9. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9396 >: #9396: < Hide Application menu >
  10. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9396 >: #9396: < Add ability to hide Application menu >
  11. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9119 >: #9119: < Cleanup function for duplicated messages (not LMC) in history >
  12. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/8742 >: #8742: < Integrate the Appindicator plugin into Gajim >
  13. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/9573 >: #9573: < Connecting to an onion service leaks DNS requests to clearnet >
  14. bot Philipp Hörist closed an issue in _gajim_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/issues/7820 >: #7820: < Limit avatar loading by dimensions/size (stuttering UI) >
  15. wurstsalat lovetox, does url image preview support images received via openpgp plugin yet?
  16. lovetox you nean new or old?
  17. wurstsalat New
  18. lovetox no
  19. wurstsalat Okay, was just asking to see if that issue is still up to date :)
  20. bot Daniel Brötzmann modified an issue in _gajim-plugins_ < https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim-plugins/issues/142 >: #142: < [preview] Add support for decrypting PGP encrypted images >
  21. Link Mauve “21:23:22 marc> Link Mauve, do you have plans to use gstreamer webrtc instead of the (unmaintained?) farstreamer library?”, I don’t maintain any of this code in Gajim, also I thought Farstream was still useful even alongside WebRTC for negociation for Jingle.
  22. Link Mauve Did you get in touch with Farstream people? Last time I saw people contribute, it was not an issue.
  23. oli why webrtc?
  24. Link Mauve oli, because unlike plain RTP it is encrypted, and it also allows interoperability with clients running in a browser.
  25. oli you can do jingle audio in a browser as far as i kniw
  26. oli you can do jingle audio in a browser as far as i know
  27. Link Mauve oli, sure, using WebRTC.
  28. oli what is webrtc?
  29. Link Mauve Which is why supporting it in Gajim would be neat, so you can talk with web clients and not just other desktop clients.
  30. lovetox oli webrtc is the audio protocol, jingle is the negotiation layer on top
  31. oli sure?
  32. Link Mauve oli, it is a set of extensions to RTP, mostly.
  33. lovetox yes
  34. oli rtp is the audio protocol
  35. lovetox webrtc is also a negotiation component
  36. lovetox but on a lower level
  37. oli webrtc adds the browser api and negotiation. negotiation is done by jingle
  38. lovetox jingle only negotiatis basic stuff
  39. oli so native xmpp clients don't do webrtc
  40. lovetox like ip maybe a bit rate
  41. lovetox but there is much more to negotiate for having encrypted transport
  42. Link Mauve lovetox, no, Jingle also negociates stuff like DTLS-SRTP fingerprint, SSRC and such.
  43. Link Mauve It’s all described in various XEPs.
  44. Link Mauve Also ICE.
  45. Link Mauve oli, the only reason they don’t is that their implementation is like a decade old, and no one seems interested in audio/video anymore.
  46. oli and it's all di e in a way it can work between sip and webrtc
  47. Link Mauve oli, Jingle has pretty much the same role as SIP in the stack, you can negociate a WebRTC RTP session with SIP probably.
  48. oli so the idea is that xmpp clients don't use xmpp/jingle but sdp?
  49. oli encapsualted in xmpp?
  50. Link Mauve oli, no, the idea is that you convert SDP into Jingle.
  51. Link Mauve XEP-0167 and various other ones define a mapping from SDP properties to XML elements.
  52. oli so we don't do webrtc over the wire, but use the webrtc library?
  53. Link Mauve Err, what?
  54. Link Mauve WebRTC, as I said in the beginning, is just a set of extensions on top of RDP, both in the transport layer and in the encryption layer.
  55. Link Mauve Whether you use an existing library to implement it, rely on a browser using such a library, or write your data byte by byte in the UDP socket doesn’t really matter, except in ease of use.
  56. Link Mauve Whether you use an existing library to implement it, rely on a browser using such a library, or write your data byte by byte in the UDP socket doesn’t really matter, except in ease of development.
  57. oli all the realtime audio stuff and rdp encryption is not webrtc specific.
  58. Link Mauve oli, sure, you can implement each specific extension instead, but once you’re done you just ended up with a WebRTC implementation.
  59. oli yes, but if you do the negotiation via jingle it's not webrtc anymore
  60. Link Mauve So you mean that Jitsi Meet, Movim or JSXC don’t use WebRTC because they all negociate their WebRTC session using Jingle?
  61. oli they use the webrtc api in the browser for sure.
  62. Link Mauve Indeed, but I can’t figure out the point you’re trying to make.
  63. oli if you have an xmpp client that uses jingle directly (farstream lib) and a xmpp client that uses jingle translated from sdp (webrtc lib) can they connect to each other?
  64. Link Mauve oli, first, I’d argue that “Jingle directly” is also translated from SDP.
  65. Link Mauve And then no, because WebRTC requires a set of extensions, so if your first client doesn’t use them the second one will reject the negociation.
  66. oli which extensions?
  67. Link Mauve DTLS-SRTP, SSRC, RFC5888, at least.
  68. Link Mauve I don’t know them off-hand.
  69. Link Mauve Then you also have additional features, such as data channels.
  70. oli so the xmpp webrtc does speak jingle, but it does not connect to any other xmpp jingle client?
  71. oli and RFC5888 is SDP
  72. Link Mauve oli, err, Jingle is just the negociation part.
  73. Link Mauve I can negociate a file transfer over HTTP and it’s still Jingle.
  74. oli so they negotiate that they cannot negotiate?
  75. Link Mauve Yet, any other client wanting audio/video will tell me nope, I don’t understand.
  76. Link Mauve oli, correct.
  77. oli so it's non-conformant jingle?
  78. Link Mauve What is conformant Jingle?
  79. Link Mauve What is mandatory to implement?
  80. Link Mauve Who can tell me that my implementation is conformant or not?
  81. Link Mauve Does my implementation becomes non-conformant a few years later as newer specifications have been published?
  82. oli I still don't understand what it is now? webrtc, jingle or webjinglertc
  83. Link Mauve oli, the first one is a set of extensions to RDP, mandatory to implement if you want to talk to a browser; the second is an XMPP extension translating SDP into XML (approximately); the third one isn’t a thing.
  84. Link Mauve The first one is also a JavaScript API, but that doesn’t matter for our purpose.
  85. oli yes, but mostly all of these mandatory extensions are independent of webrtc and are also used by sip and jingle. again: if you use a webrtc lib with an xmpp client and negotiate via jingle what do you get: a webrtc session, a jingle session, both or something else
  86. oli ?
  87. Link Mauve oli, both.
  88. Link Mauve oli, extensions are negociated through SIP or Jingle, and then used for the SDP session.
  89. oli i know
  90. oli sorry, thats wrong
  91. Link Mauve Then I don’t understand your “mostly all of these mandatory extensions are independent of webrtc and are also used by sip and jingle.”
  92. oli Jingle is a SDP
  93. oli Jingle is used instead of SDP
  94. oli You can translate a Jingle session to an SDP session
  95. Link Mauve Oops, I meant “and then used for the RTP session.”
  96. lovetox i dont know what you 2 are talking about
  97. lovetox i have a webrtc lib, and i need a IP endpoint where i can connect to, so i get a audio call
  98. lovetox where do i get this IP from?
  99. lovetox surley not from the webrtc lib
  100. lovetox thats why we need jingle to negotiate that
  101. lovetox end of story :)
  102. oli lovetox: where do you get this IP from?
  103. oli and what happens after you negotiated the IPs
  104. lovetox i tell the webrtc lib to do its thing
  105. lovetox or the farstream lib
  106. lovetox or whatever lib which provides whatever audio service based on whatever protocol
  107. lovetox now if we would need more than just the ip before we can use that lib we can add that to the jingle negotiation also
  108. lovetox but the point is, im in the xmpp network with other participants, and i use my xmpp connection to get these informations
  109. oli how do you get your routers IP from the xmpp connection?
  110. lovetox im saying this because you made it sound like webrtc makes jingle unnecessary
  111. lovetox oli with the jingle protocol extension
  112. lovetox im not sure if you asking because you dont know what jingle is, or you trying to troll
  113. oli which uses ICE, which is also part of WebRTC
  114. oli WebRTC overlaps with Jingle
  115. oli I'm just trying to figure out what the intentions are
  116. oli So you want to use Jingle Media, but limit it to DTLS-SRTP connections, because that is what WebRTC demands? Which makes it incompatible to every Farstream client, because it supports SRTP only?
  117. oli But besides that they both speak Jingle, because the SDP is translated to Jingle
  118. Link Mauve oli, err, why would you want to either force encryption or completely not implement it?
  119. Link Mauve Jingle is here to be able to negociate whether you use it or not.
  120. oli where did I say that?
  121. Link Mauve You will need to use it always with WebRTC clients, and to never use it with older clients.
  122. Link Mauve oli, why do you say “incompatible” then?
  123. oli you drive me crazy
  124. Link Mauve I don’t see what you argue for or against.
  125. oli You can also write a XMPP Jingle client than supports SRTP and DTLS-SRTP
  126. oli and plain RTP
  127. lovetox i think the first question here is, if gajim with its current farstream lib can be compatible to a web client that implements it via webrtc
  128. lovetox im no expert but i always thought the answer is: No they are not compatible and can not establish an audio call
  129. lovetox correct me if im wrong
  130. oli farstream does not support DTLS-SRTP as far as I know
  131. oli but gstreamer does
  132. oli (does it?)
  133. lovetox i have no idea, the whole thing is a endless count of plugins and protocols stuffed on top of each other
  134. lovetox but gstreamer has a webrtc plugin
  135. lovetox so i guess somewhere in this thing it supports whatever webrtc needs
  136. Link Mauve Maybe ask #gstreamer%irc.freenode.net@irc.jabberfr.org (xmpp:#gstreamer%irc.freenode.net@irc.jabberfr.org?join) instead of trying to guess.
  137. Link Mauve Many people there are/were contributors to Farstream.
  138. lovetox the argument for implementing webrtc is, that webclients can really easy implement it
  139. lovetox and as there is now a lib for it for desktop clients, i guess its not much harder than with farstream
  140. oli alternatively someone could add DTLS-SRTP to Farstream and if you like you can call it WebRTC
  141. Link Mauve oli, I’m pretty sure a lot of people would welcome that.
  142. Link Mauve But it’s work, which so far nobody has even expressed wanting to do.
  143. Link Mauve If you want to implement it, that’d be really awesome. :)
  144. oli No, that would be really a mess
  145. Link Mauve Then why are you asking for those things?
  146. Link Mauve Every discussions we’ve had today were extremely frustrating, could you express your intent much clearer?
  147. oli If I would do it, it would really be a mess
  148. oli Adding DTLS to farstream would be great
  149. oli I'm just not the one who has the skills
  150. Link Mauve Oh, I see.
  151. oli text chat ;)
  152. Link Mauve I’m quite used to text chat, I’ve been using XMPP for close to 13 years now (damn, that’s almost half of my life!).
  153. oli we ne telepathy (not the lib, the real thing)
  154. oli we need telepathy (not the lib, the real thing)
  155. Link Mauve And when people talk in a clearer way, it’s easier to understand them.
  156. oli that is a little bit the problem with webrtc for xmpp discussion in general. everything is mixed up...
  157. Link Mauve oli, if you didn’t understand my explanations from earlier, I can try to summarise it.
  158. oli I'm just against calling that stuff WebRTC, when it's also Jingle
  159. Link Mauve oli, do you also refuse to call something RDP, because it’s also SIP?
  160. Link Mauve RTP* sorry.
  161. Link Mauve (Damn, too many acronyms!)
  162. oli VNC?
  163. Link Mauve I prefer to use the common names for things.
  164. oli ;)
  165. Link Mauve Like, for all purposes, when you implement RTP, a bunch of extensions, and are able to video call web clients, there is no reason not to say you do implement WebRTC.
  166. oli I think we have different concept what is what
  167. Link Mauve Even if you indeed didn’t implement a JavaScript API.
  168. oli I would express it like this (and I might missing something important and it's totally wrong): to be compatible with WebRTC, XMPP clients have to support DTLS-SRTP and SRTP and RTP should be deprecated.
  169. oli because we want to use WebRTC libs
  170. Link Mauve That’s quite wrong, as DTLS-SRTP is definitely not the only mandatory extension to RTP you have to implement in order to talk with a web client, and it’s all built on RTP so you can’t deprecate that.
  171. Link Mauve That’s quite wrong, as DTLS-SRTP is definitely not the only extension to RTP you have to implement in order to talk with a web client, and it’s all built on RTP so you can’t deprecate that.
  172. oli you are always right
  173. oli let's talk in 13 years
  174. Link Mauve oli, please tell me what is wrong in what I just said.
  175. pep. I'm not sure I understand what puts you off oli
  176. an is it possible to unregister nickname from muc server using gajim?
  177. lovetox unregister ..
  178. lovetox yes
  179. lovetox go to the service discover dialog
  180. lovetox select the muc service
  181. lovetox the execute command , register with muc
  182. lovetox and leave the nickname empty