Skip to content

Add rewritten metadata specification#250

Closed
attilamolnar wants to merge 1 commit into
ircv3:masterfrom
attilamolnar:metadata-3.3
Closed

Add rewritten metadata specification#250
attilamolnar wants to merge 1 commit into
ircv3:masterfrom
attilamolnar:metadata-3.3

Conversation

@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@attilamolnar attilamolnar commented Mar 16, 2016 •
edited by jwheare
Loading

TODO:

  • Update numerics to match inspircd implementation
  • Rewrite to include the parts of 3.2 that still apply, clarifying if necessary and mention that 3.2 is deprecated (see Deprecate metadata-3.2 for the time being. #279)
  • Add a requirement that clients should expect to receive notifications even if they haven't subscribed to any key, e.g. if a server needs to update a client's own metadata, e.g. on oper, or auth, or if an oper sets a key on another user.
  • Specify a cap value that advertises a limit of key and/or value names
  • Drop the 3.3 versioning. (see Unbundle specifications from versioned releases #265)
  • Non-normative sections in the metadata spec #278 Additional non-normative sections
  • Remove RPL_METADATAEND replies, clients should use labeled-response
  • Allow async processing of requests
  • Change ERR_KEYINVALID to drop the message reason and include the invalid key as the last arg since it could contain spaces
  • Clarify ERR_KEYNOPERMISSION to expand "not settable by the requesting user" with "or otherwise disallowed by the server"
  • Allow hyphens in key names

Discuss:

  • Rename CAP to just metadata (no need for version number, values are about more than notifications)

ghost
ghost reviewed Mar 16, 2016
View reviewed changes
Comment thread extensions/metadata-3.3.md
subscribe to.

Servers and clients MAY support both of the mentioned extensions, but MUST NOT
negotiate both of them at the same time in the same connection.
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ghost ghost Mar 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Depending on the order, I'd allow the client to either request both (metadata-notify and then ...-2) or allow ...-2 and reject the other.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@attilamolnar attilamolnar Mar 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any good reason to do it that way? I've deliberately tried to avoid adding special cases like "if both are present, accept only one" or "if the order is X Y accept if Y X then reject". Servers must accept all caps in a CAP REQ or reject them all per the cap spec.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ghost ghost Mar 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By 'order' here I mean specifically each capability is in a REQ of its own; it doesn't make sense to reject ...-2 if metadata-notify was negotiated previously.

Clients MAY request metadata-notify-2 after a successful metadata-notify.

...may be the best way to phrase it.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@attilamolnar attilamolnar Mar 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any good reason to deliberately allow that?

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ghost ghost Mar 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

...Well, if a client author's developing support for IRCv3.3 metadata, they might have already negotiated metadata-notify by default. It's not a particularly good reason, though, so I won't insist on it.

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Mar 16, 2016

The key subscription needs to be disclosed to the client somewhere, e.g. via a METADATA key on RPL_ISUPPORT.

@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2016
Closed
7 tasks
@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Mar 16, 2016

The key subscription needs to be disclosed to the client somewhere, e.g. via a METADATA key on RPL_ISUPPORT.

I don't exactly understand what you mean. Can you elaborate? If this is about advertising the availability of the new subcommands, the presence of metadata-notify-2 implies support for them.

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Mar 16, 2016

Sorry, I missed a word there; the key subscription limit needs to be disclosed.

@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Mar 16, 2016

I agree, that should be advertised. I think it should be in the cap's value because we can't change the format of the value of the METADATA ISUPPORT token after release and adding a new ISUPPORT token is not necessary if there is a cap already.

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Mar 16, 2016

I disagree; the METADATA token could be changed to use the same key/value format other RPL_ISUPPORT tokens use (TARGMAX, for instance), and clients should be able to figure out which version is which trivially.

@jwheare
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jwheare commented Mar 16, 2016

Changing the ISUPPORT format only if the CAP is negotiated seems reasonable.

@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Mar 16, 2016

I disagree; the METADATA token could be changed to use the same key/value format other RPL_ISUPPORT tokens use (TARGMAX, for instance), and clients should be able to figure out which version is which trivially.

Clients released before this specification can't figure out "which version is which" because they expect a single integer as the value of the ISUPPORT token.

Changing the ISUPPORT format only if the CAP is negotiated seems reasonable.

Clients can request metadata-notify-2 after ISUPPORT (say after they receive a CAP NEW) and they won't get the value that way. Also existing servers have a cached ISUPPORT and send that to all clients. Having per client ISUPPORT is something they'd have to add support for separately for this case and it has no benefit over advertising as a cap value. (In fact, the cap value has benefits as it allows changing the limit on the fly for example).

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Mar 16, 2016

Clients released before this specification can't figure out "which version is which" because they expect a single integer as the value of the ISUPPORT token.

This is a valid criticism.

Changing the ISUPPORT format only if the CAP is negotiated seems reasonable.

This is a terrible idea.

@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Apr 27, 2016 •
edited
Loading

What's the status of this? Do we need implementations for this to move forward?

@jwheare
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jwheare commented Apr 27, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Yes, and I think it should be merged with #245 so we can point to a single PR from the tracker issue.

@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Apr 27, 2016

Somewhat experimental implementation here: https://github.com/attilamolnar/inspircd/tree/master%2Bmetadata

@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request May 5, 2016
Closed
@sadiepowell sadiepowell mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2016
Closed
@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2016
Closed
@attilamolnar attilamolnar force-pushed the metadata-3.3 branch 2 times, most recently from 4e13133 to 4ac53c7 Compare November 16, 2016 12:31
@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2016
Closed
@attilamolnar attilamolnar changed the title Add metadata-3.3 specification Add rewritten metadata specification Nov 22, 2016
@attilamolnar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

attilamolnar commented Jan 6, 2017

More ideas: Remove the End of metadata numeric sent in reply to every METADATA command, clients that want to track when the reply ends should use labeled-response. Also allow the server to asynchronously process any METADATA request (but still in order).

@jwheare jwheare added this to the Roadmap milestone Jan 7, 2017
@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request Feb 22, 2018
Closed
jwheare added a commit to jwheare/ircv3-specifications that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2018
@jwheare
Explicit subscription from ircv3#250
4481cf0
@jwheare jwheare mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2018
Closed
11 tasks
@jwheare
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jwheare commented Apr 11, 2018

Closing in favour of #339

@jwheare jwheare closed this Apr 11, 2018
progval pushed a commit to progval/ircv3-specifications that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2022
@jwheare @progval
Explicit subscription from ircv3#250
b6aeb7d
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

metadata

Projects

None yet

Milestone

Roadmap

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@attilamolnar @jwheare