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.
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
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!
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
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
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!
Hi,
I cannot figure out how to use early data in XEP-0484.
Main question, which part does go into the early data?
<authenticate/> stanza?
And how does it combine with XML stream start?
How does the server should reply and when?
It would be nice to have the complete example for successful auth,
including indication of what goes into early data and what does not.
Maybe people who already implemented early data in XEP-0484 could comment.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0484.html
