[Members] interop testing

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 05:59:02 CST 2010

On 2 November 2010 11:45, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Sat Oct 30 14:17:05 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I think it would be good to start preparing better for interop testing
>> at XSF events. I'm fine at leading discussions about specs, but I'm not
>> a developer so I don't know quite what we need here. What do you folks
>> think? How can the XSF help in terms of process and infrastructure?
> On this note...
> I'd like to propose that the XSF arranges regular interop events to test and
> publicly demonstrate interoperability across a range of functionality.
> Various other organizations are doing the same, at the moment, and these are
> only involving a small cross-section of the implementations - generally
> those focussed on a particular industry sector. This might cause a somewhat
> skewed viewpoint on just how good interoperability *is* in XMPP - I've
> always assumed it to be excellent, but involvement with some of these
> specialist events has shaken my confidence, and not done XMPP itself any
> favours.
> Therefore, I'm proposing that the XSF should organize an event prior to
> this; this suggests rather strongly that the event should be conducted
> online. The things I'd like to concentrate on are the basics - S2S and C2S
> authentication/security, and MUC. (Yes, this does imply existing
> implementations failed to interop even here, much to my surprise).
> In particular:
> - TLS/X.509 authentication for S2S.
> - SCRAM (including, ideally, -PLUS) for C2S.
> - Joining local and remote chatrooms.
> I also think we could do more, but I'd ideally like to conentrate on just
> this. Other technologies seem to be easier to do interop testing in somewhat
> less formal ways, in part because the implementation pools are often
> smaller.
> I'm suggesting the first week of December - that is, Monday 6th through to
> Saturday 11th, inclusive.
> The way I see it operating is as follows:
> 1) The XSF sets up a test DNS zone, containing domains for each
> implementation taking part (this might well be more than one - in Isode's
> case, I think we'd be likely to put in our current release as well as the
> forthcoming one).

We've been here before, but yes :)

> 2) Participants can arrange times to perform testing. Participants will
> provide each other with transcripts as needed. Server implementations would
> be online continuously for the week; the arrangement of times is for the
> "staff".

What kind of medium are you thinking...? MUC? Wiki?

> 3) Two temporary teams need to be formed by the XSF. One administrative, to
> organize resources such as the DNS, chatrooms, mailing lists, etc. One
> technical, for arbitration if we actually get an interop failure (and
> writing up what the correct reading and/or fix the specifications need).

Administrative would probably be the existing iteam - already handling
DNS, servers and mailing lists. A technical team for arbitration and
documentation would have to be led by Peter, I'm sure that's probably
in the bylaws by now :)

> 4) The XSF will need to operate a CA for the event. Whilst I've not
> confirmed this, I think Isode can provide (at least one) copy of our CA
> software to the XSF for this purpose, which would give somebody a simple
> (ie, GUI clicky) way of generating X.509 certificates with various
> combinations of Subject RDNs and Subject Alternative Names.

Fancy :)

> So, questions:
> a) Are sufficient numbers of members interested in this?

I am, very much so.

> b) Are sufficient number of implementors able to commit? (I know many aren't
> members, but if we can generate a critical mass here, we should be fine in
> attracting more).

I am, very much so.

> c) Is the Board (presumably) interested in overseeing the organization?

If I were on the Board, I would be, very much so.


More information about the Members mailing list