December 2025 - Standards

LAST CALL: XEP-0424 (Message Retraction)
by Daniel Gultsch 03 Jul '26

03 Jul '26

This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0424. Title: Message Retraction Abstract: This specification defines a method for indicating that a message should be retracted. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0424.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2025-01-06. 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!

9 27

LAST CALL: XEP-0377 (Spam Reporting)
by Daniel Gultsch 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0377. Title: Spam Reporting Abstract: This document specifies a mechanism by which users can report spam and other abuse to a server operator or other spam service. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0377.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2026-01-05. 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!

7 16

Means to handle spam
by Schimon Jehudah 30 Dec '25

30 Dec '25

Greetings to one and all. I would want to apologise for posting to this mailing-list, as mailing-lists "general" and "jdev" are closed. I am interested in discussing automated spam, and automated counter measures against that issue. I have created a moderation service (i.e. "bot") software to handle this concern. The interface of that software is of XMPP client, so anyone can operate it from anywhere. I would be glad to be honored by your kind participation. https://git.xmpp-it.net/sch/KaikOut Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Schimon

1 0

XSF Membership Application period Q1 2026
by Alexander Gnauck 22 Dec '25

22 Dec '25

I have setup the XSF membership application Wiki page for the application period Q1-2026 Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are actively involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply, create a page about yourself on the Wiki: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q1_2026 If you don't have a wiki account, send your full name, preferred nickname and email address to me or one of the other Sysops: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Sysops When you need help with your application then don't hesitate to contact me directly Apply now!!! Thanks, Alex

1 0

LAST CALL: XEP-0484 (Fast Authentication Streamlining Tokens)
by Daniel Gultsch 13 Dec '25

13 Dec '25

This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0484. Title: Fast Authentication Streamlining Tokens Abstract: This specification defines a token-based method to streamline authentication in XMPP, allowing fully authenticated stream establishment within a single round-trip. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0484.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2025-01-27. 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!

6 20

Bind2 question
by Thilo Molitor 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

Why are the inlined bind2 features inside <feature/> elements rather than using the exact same syntax as when announcing the same features in the stream features element (e.g. <csi xmlns='urn:xmpp:csi:0'/>) For reference: <bind xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind:0'> <inline> <feature var="urn:xmpp:carbons:2" /> <feature var="urn:xmpp:csi:0" /> <feature var="urn:xmpp:sm:3" /> </inline> </bind> -tmolitor

1 0

NEW: XEP-0509 (Initial Authentication Pipelining)
by Daniel Gultsch 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0509 (Initial Authentication Pipelining) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines a protocol for discovering if the SASL2 <authenticate> can be pipelined safely along with the stream open, and if so allows the client to perform this pipelining safely. Changelog: Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0509.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.

1 0

authorization-identifier versus authorization-identity in SASL2 and BIND2
by Thilo Molitor 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

Why is XEP-0386 (BIND2) talking about <authorization-identity/> at [1] whereas XEP-0388 (SASL2) is talking about <authorization-identifier/> at [2]? Bot specs use it for exactly the same thing: communicating the bare or full jid (if a bind occured). Why this double-element? XEP-0388 even states > If the Client is now authenticated, the Server sends a <success/> element, which contains an <authorization-identifier/> element containing the negotiated identity - this is a bare JID, unless resource binding has occurred, in which case it is a full JID. So it seems like a perfect fit to communicate the full jid after bind using the SASL2 element, why was this extra BIND2 element added? -tmolitor [1] https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0386.html#identifiers [2] https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0388.html#success

3 2

Should new features utilize different namespaces?
by Schimon Jehudah 10 Dec '25

10 Dec '25

Greetings. This is a concern about backward compatibility. Preface ------- Earlier, this evening, after I have sent a series of corrections to messages at the group chat of XSF Discussion, Mr. Guus has mentioned the concern of backward compatibility with clients that do not support message corrections, or reactions and other features that have a visual impact. Wed 10 Dec 2025 06:21:44 PM - Guus: > My client displays a wall of text in this chat room, full of quote > chains, reactions, links, and corrections. > > It's completely unreadable. I'm using a very old client with a basic > interface, but until recently, this was never an issue. > > It's disappointing to see that modern XMPP usage can make my > experience so abysmal - at least in rooms where newer clients are > active (even if _or perhaps because_ they try to implement "backwards > compatibility" features). Wed 10 Dec 2025 06:31:45 PM - lissine: > Check https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-12-10 to have an idea about the > experience of Guus Concern ------- I was wondering whether some features, which have visual impact on messages, should have XML Namespaces (xmlns). Consideration ------------- This would mean that messages that are marked as "corrected messages" will not be displayed with clients that do not support message correction, due to a namespace which is not recognized by clients that do not support that feature. Kind regards, Schimon

3 5

UPDATED: XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)
by Daniel Gultsch 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

Version 1.35.3 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: * muc#roomconfig_allowinvites doesn't restrict owners but enables additional permissions for members. (spw) 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.

1 0