[Summit] getting organized

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Jun 21 16:49:27 CDT 2010


On Mon Jun 21 17:39:46 2010, bear wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 09:58, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>  
> wrote:
> > So, for some reason I only see Bear's mails on this.
> >

Discovered why - this mailing list is inserting a "Mime-version"  
header - which is fine, but it hasn't noticed Thunderbird 3's  
"MIME-Version" header is already there. Spam filters eat it - I've  
put a fix in place for me, found the missing messages in my  
quarantine, and read 'em, but probably missed things.

> Having some certs handy and a CA would be perfect, even if only  
> remote
> - that is the kind of thing that will cause interop testing to grind
> to a very slow pace as everyone suddenly realizes what is needed.
> 
> 
No problem, I'll commit (on behalf of Isode) to having at minimum two  
(private, closed, temporary) CAs setup. We'll be able to issue  
certificates based on PKCS#10 CSRs, or else just create a PKCS#12  
anew (which is insecure for obvious reasons, but fine for interop).

We can generate various forms of SubjectAltName, including sRVName,  
xmppAddr, and dNSName, and we can have "traditional" SubjectNames  
(ie, hostname as CN) as well as following the strict X.500 spec on  
those.

It's very much harder to generate things like expired certificates,  
but I'll ask the X.509 team at Isode about that, and other  
interesting failure cases we might want to test.

If we have presence at the event, the CAs will probably be at the  
event, otherwise we'll run them remotely. (Probably me).

> I understand completely what you are getting at - heck, I wouldn't
> have liked being treated that way at first.  I think what I am
> worrying about is that if we try to mix interop and the tutorial  
> then
> one of the other suffers.  If we are planning on a tutorial then we
> need to identify the one or two people that will handle that and get
> Peter's slide deck updated.

My experience with interop events is that implementors "pair-off" to  
tests a client against a server (or whatever), before swapping about,  
and there's often a queue for one particular implementation, as  
client developers wait their turn to test, etc. Other times, there's  
a sudden involvement of nearly everyone when someone discovers a new  
bug and everyone else sees whether they have it too (or trigger it).

So I'd expect that it wouldn't actually disrupt things much if people  
wanted to step away for a minute or two and have a look at some  
showcase - the tutorials won't suffer, unless the tutorials are  
either very long, or very inolved - I don't think they need to be  
either, I'd rather concentrate on giving an overview of the  
technology and terminology, and describe how the XSF works, and then  
move onto Shiny Things.

I can heartily recommend that - if there's Nokians/Collaborans in  
attendence - making a Jingle call with a couple of n900's is quite  
good for wow-factor, still. Even better if someone wants to send me a  
handset here. ;-)

> >> > 3. What pressing issues do people want to solve? Do we need a  
> Summit to
> >> > make progress on those issues, or can we do so by other means?
> >>
> >> Interop and testing - that's my major focus to be honest.
> >
> > This is good, and I'd be keen to get that done too. We can  
> actually get a
> > lot of that done on the same day as the above, since much of it  
> will be a
> > case of setting things up and then making sure it all works.
> >
> > I'd note that we need some hardware at the venue to make this  
> portion a
> > success, in particular, we'll probably need a network switch and  
> cabling,
> > since we're always short on networking.
> 
> I can have that equipment available.
> 
> 
Brilliant. It might be useful to have a laptop setup with DHCP, DNS,  
etc just in case. It'll probably be useful to have a local IPv6  
setup, actually, if you can. Even better if you can tunnel it out to  
the Internet - then remote IPv6 sites can still do interop.

Alternately, if you can have a VPN/gateway you can setup an  
accessible, but private, network for testing - that might work out  
better, assuming we can test the VPN stuff works beforehand.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade


More information about the Summit mailing list