February 2025 - Standards

LAST CALL: XEP-0440 (SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability)

by Daniel Gultsch

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!

2 weeks, 3 days

9
30
0 0

XEP-0001 Changes to reflect current practice wrt XEP Authors

by Dave Cridland

Hey hey, Boring incoming: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407 This is draft to avoid the XSF Board accidentally approving it before the community has had a chance to discuss. The main change is the paragraph added in Section 6 (Discussion Process), covering changes to the XEP during Experimental: The XEP author incorporates the feedback by creating source control patches > (such as Pull Requests), in line with the preferred method in &xep0143;. > Direct changes to an Experimental XEP, such as a contributor providing a > patch (or Pull Request on GitHub), are still the responsibility of the XEP > author, and are only applied if the XEP author agrees. If a XEP has > multiple authors, while agreement is sought from all authors, only those > opinions from responsive authors are considered. If the Approving Body > feels that the XEP author is not responsive, another author may be added > unilaterally by the Approving Body. This is trying to do two things: 1) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed, whereby changes to Experimental XEPs need "agreement" (PR approval, or similar) from the XEP Author. 2) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed. whereby if a XEP Author isn't responsive (ie, doesn't respond to emails, etc) the XMPP Council can add a new XEP Author. 3) Document the *new practice* that if a contribution isn't a PR, it's the XEP Author who is responsible to turn it into one. The rest of the changes surface and restate existing process/policy/URLs and aren't that interesting (well, even less interesting). There is one additional possible process deviation we should document (or call the Process Police out, or something). Submission of a XEP, as per XEP-0143, occurs via email tot he Editor. Is this really still the case? Or are these now by PR? That'll need changing in XEP-0143, which I'm happy to do if that's the case. It'd be nice to have a non-PR variant of the process (post here?) Dave.

3 months

6
17
0 0

Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Server Information

by kevin.smith＠isode.com

The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: PubSub Server Information Abstract: This document defines a data format whereby basic information of an XMPP domain can be expressed and exposed over pub-sub. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-server-info.html The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.

5 months

3
3
0 0

New XEP proposal: Spaces

by Nicolas Cedilnik

Hello everyone, I just submitted https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1426 with a rendered version at https://nicoco.fr/inbox/spaces.html This is an attempt at a minimal "spaces XEP". I remember reading a document a long time ago which looked impressively complete but did not turn into a XEP proposal. I suspect this is because the document attempted to cover everything, and there are very different use-cases for spaces, with different permissions models, ranging from fully public to completely private through "some rooms are public but some require being part of a subteam" etc. I tried a different approach here, attempting to lay the foundation of what is the minimum to cluster several groupchats without relying on a dedicated MUC service just for that. The slidge-based gateways for discord, mattermost and matrix already implement listing the "servers", "teams" and "spaces" of these networks via adhoc commands. I would very much like to make this a bit more generic (and standardised!) in slidge "core", the gateway library (and also expose in the disco#info of each room which "space" it is a child of). About the name, I called it "server-side spaces" because I think what Gajim already does with its workspaces is great and should be standardized at some point too, that would be another XEP, maybe "client(or user)-side spaces", later. I already gathered a little feedback from the xsf@ room, and incorporated it in the present submission. Looking forward to reading your feedback. -- nicoco

7 months, 3 weeks

5
10
0 0

Proposed XMPP Extension: Server-side spaces

by Daniel Gultsch

The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: Server-side spaces Abstract: This document defines an XMPP protocol to cluster several groupchat rooms together. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/spaces.html The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.

8 months, 1 week

3
3
0 0

XMPP Council Agenda 2025-02-25

by Daniel Gultsch

Good Morning Council Members, the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, February 25 2025 at 16:30 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join The Agenda is as follows: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda Bashing 3) Editors update * Proposed XMPP Extension: Server-side spaces https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/spaces.html 4) Items for voting a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Server-side spaces https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/spaces.html 5) Pending votes none See the spreadsheet of doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAHUqBdlkobDcmfQ-YRMfZHGQLMWEdOFuEU… 6) Date of Next 7) AOB 8) Close

8 months, 2 weeks

1
0
0 0

LAST CALL: XEP-0484 (Fast Authentication Streamlining Tokens)

by Daniel Gultsch

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!

8 months, 2 weeks

5
15
0 0

Splitting XEP-0455 (Service Outage Status)

by Mathieu Pasquet

Hi everyone, I have been thinking lately about updating XEP-0455 (and getting around to implementing it), and I find the initial semantics that I came up with a bit murky. My plan now is to remove the in-band events and outage planning entirely, to only keep the signaling part (using 0128) and the json format to describe an ongoing outage. I would also update the wording to say that a client should fetch the external address only if it does not manage to connect to the server. This way, the XEP will do one thing and do it quite efficiently, and the in-band events and planning can go into another XEP without being constrained by the requirements for (complete and ongoing) outages from 0455. Writing this to the list to collect some thoughts on the matter, or if anyone would be more interested in implementing this reduced version. Cheers, mathieui

9 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

XEP-0377: New option for Spam Reporting

by Guus der Kinderen

Hello, XEP-0377 describes a mechanism to report spam or abusive content to the local domain. While implementing the server-sided part of this, I was trying to think of useful processes that could follow a report. Some of those actions could include sharing the report with third parties, such as the origin server of the spam, or a centralized spam-related collection service (like xmppbl). There is a privacy aspect to this. An end-user that flags a particular message or entity might not realize or even appreciate that their report is being forwarded to others than the local domain. I suggest having an additional field added to the data structure that is already defined in the XEP. This field is used by the reporter to signal if they agree to share the report with third parties. Clients could present this option as a checkbox that reads something like "Allow this report to be shared with relevant third parties" (or better words). Kind regards, Guus

9 months, 1 week

1
1
0 0

LAST CALL: XEP-0424 (Message Retraction)

by Daniel Gultsch

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 months, 1 week

9
26
0 0

2025

2024

2023

Standards February 2025