The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Jingle Remote Control
Abstract:
This specification defines a way to remotely control a device using
local peripheral inputs.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/remote-control.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
I am an end-user using two XMPP clients: for desktop and mobile. Since there is no XEP standard for muting conversations, the two clients implement this in their own way, and they are out of sync: the contacts I have muted on phone are not automatically muted on desktop and vice-verse.
While looking to see if XMPP have such XEP, I found these extensions from Tigase that might be helpful in writing an official XEP:
https://xeps.tigase.net/docs/push-notifications/filters
I am an end-user, and having used Telegram for some time, it offers a more fine-grained control over members of a group.
One of those controls is to prevent group members (usually bots) from reading group messages, and only allow them to send messages, following the principle of least privilege.
A more complex set up would be partially allow them to read messages directed to them and exclude the rest of messages. E.g: by specifying a command like /bot, the bot can read the content of that message to process it then reply back.
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0421.
Title: Anonymous unique occupant identifiers for MUCs
Abstract:
This specification defines a method that allows clients to identify a
MUC participant across reconnects and renames. It thus prevents
impersonification of anonymous users.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0421.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-05-27.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
Hi,
Some feedback while trying to implement these XEPs
XEP-0424
1)
The schema mentions
<xs:attribute name='by' type='xs:string' use='optional'/>
But the XEP does not mention the attribute, what is the purpose?
2)
> When replacing the original message with a tombstone, the original contents (i.e. the <body/> and any related elements which might leak information about the original message) get replaced with a <retracted/> element which MUST include an 'id' attribute referring to the original message
Why does the element MUST have an id attribute? its a element inside the <message> which already has the id, or in case of groupchat its inside a mam wrapper which has a stanza id, in all cases its perfectly clear that the retracted element belongs to the actual message wrapping it, maybe im missing something obvious here but i dont see a need for this id attribute at all.
Example 7
> For messages of type 'groupchat', the stanza's Unique and Stable Stanza IDs (XEP-0359) <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0359.html> [4 <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0424.html#nt-idm41385450875712>] 'origin ID' MUST NOT be used for retractions
Example mentions origin-id in groupchat context
<message type="groupchat" from="romeo(a)montague.example" to="lord(a)capulet.example" id="wrong-recipient-1">
<retracted stamp='2019-09-20T23:09:32Z' xmlns='urn:xmpp:message-retract:1' id='origin-id-1'/>
</message>
XEP-0425
1)
> A Message Archive Management (XEP-0313) <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html> [6 <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html#nt-idm34711750431632>] service MAY replace the contents of a message, that was retracted due to moderation, with a 'tombstone' similar to the one described in Message Retraction (XEP-0424) <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0424.html> [5 <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html#nt-idm34711750445088>].
How similiar? The tombstone text does not mention seemingly important MUST rules from XEP 0424
For example
> Some clients may have been offline while the retraction was issued. The archiving service therefore MUST store the retraction message, regardless of whether the original message is deleted or replaced with a tombstone.
the above mentioned MUST rule about the id attribute in the <retracted> element, seems to be not important anymore in moderation, at least the id attribute is not found anymore in the tombstone.
Im not saying we need to copy text 1:1 between the XEPs, but should the XEP not go into more detail what exactly the differences are, and what exactly from 0424 applies?
Thanks
Regards
Philipp
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0440.
Title: SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability
Abstract:
This specification allows servers to annouce their supported SASL
channel-binding types to clients.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0440.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-05-20.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
Version 1.34.6 of XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for multi-user
text chat, whereby multiple XMPP users can exchange messages in the
context of a room or channel, similar to Internet Relay Chat (IRC). In
addition to standard chatroom features such as room topics and
invitations, the protocol defines a strong room control model,
including the ability to kick and ban users, to name room moderators
and administrators, to require membership or passwords in order to
join the room, etc.
Changelog:
Remove contradicting keyword on sending subject in §7.2.2. (pep)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
Version 2.5.0 of XEP-0030 (Service Discovery) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for discovering
information about other XMPP entities. Two kinds of information can be
discovered: (1) the identity and capabilities of an entity, including
the protocols and features it supports; and (2) the items associated
with an entity, such as the list of rooms hosted at a multi-user chat
service.
Changelog:
Add note about some entities not advertising the feature. (pep)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
Good morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, May 7 2024
at 16:00 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join
The Agenda is as follows:
1) Roll call
2) Agenda Bashing
3) Editors update
4) Items for voting
a) PR: XEP-0030: Note known wart
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1341
b) PR: XEP-0045: Remove conflicting keyword in §7.2.2
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1342
5) Pending votes
Marvin on
* Issue Last Call on 'XEP-0421: Anonymous unique occupant identifiers
for MUCs' (expires today)
See the spreadsheet of Doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H310M8z6Kdo6XyNf2DwafzrSLuwhaLNvzfa…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
