Add draft account-registration spec

[progval]

This draft specification adds simple REGISTER and VERIFY commands to standardize account creation, as a replacement for the withdrawn Account Management Framework

It is based on @edk0's draft, and is implemented by Oragono and Limnoria.

rendered view

[westor7]

Very nice idea and i hope for this, having some quick questions about this:

1. What if the irc services having VERIFY disabled, so a user no need to verify his email?
2. What if a user due the VERIFY sends an incorrect code or incorrect account?
3. What if the irc services will be down?

• Thanks!

[progval]

1. What if the irc services having VERIFY disabled, so a user no need to verify his email?

Then the server responds with REGISTER SUCCESS instead of REGISTER VERIFICATION_REQUIRED.

2. What if a user due the VERIFY sends an incorrect code or incorrect account?
3. What if the irc services will be down?

Good catch. Added response codes FAIL VERIFY INVALID_CODE and FAIL REGISTER/VERIFY TEMPORARILY_UNAVAILABLE.

[westor7]

339361e#diff-2050f0354e63e54a43299643306ae9c6b94a0a5e24af547c1b50a95fadbfc81aR122

You mean if NOT right?

So: Sent by the server if the `REGISTER`/`VERIFY` commands are temporarily available.
Should be: Sent by the server if the `REGISTER`/`VERIFY` commands are temporarily unavailable.

[DanielOaks]

We should reach out to see whether Atheme+Anope have any thoughts on this. Any ircds have thoughts about it? (obviously Ora likes it, and we started using the before-connect key because that supports certain kinds of restricted installs that we support but I don't think traditional irc nets would be into that aspect).

[aaronmdjones]

Why do the success messages resemble e.g. REGISTER SUCCESS but the failure messages resemble FAIL REGISTER? Should they not be the other way around?

[progval]

@aaronmdjones The error messages follow the new Standard Replies Extension

[edk0]

null characters can't be in IRC messages anyway so mentioning them feels a bit redundant

[progval]

Can we merge this?

[jwheare]

@SadieCat is this implemented in Anope now?

[sadiepowell]

I do have a WIP implementation. I'll try to get it onto the InspIRCd Testnet this week.

[progval]

@SadieCat Any news?

[jwheare]

Probably good to merge this as draft even without an anope implementation. Client devs can test using ergo. Can do so next week unless there's any blockers.

[jwheare]

Blocking merge pending resolution on ircv3/ircv3-ideas#78

[jwheare]

Dropping draft/ isn't clear cut so unblocking this.

[jwheare]

The motivation section probably doesn't need to mention the history of ACC or go into how the authors hope it will be acceptable. It can just be more direct about what the spec is for on its own terms. @progval can you have a stab at fixing that? Otherwise I can merge and we'll fix it before ratifying.

[jwheare]

Actually a few quick things I'd like changing before merge.

[progval]

All good now?

[jwheare]

Alright looks good to merge now.