May 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!

1 week, 4 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.

4 months, 4 weeks

3
3
0 0

Moderating PubSub

by Schimon Jehudah

Good day, to one and all. I am considering to utilize a PubSub service as a public discussion board; and, as a public discussion board, it should be free for all. I was wondering whether an approval or other type of moderation mechanism is specified for PubSub. Kind regards, Schimon

5 months

5
9
0 0

XEP-0115: Mismatched 'node' attribute value when detecting capabilities

by Guus der Kinderen

Hi all, This follows a discussion the XSF's Standards Discussion MUC. Logs start at https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-18 (and continue into the next days). XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities describes how capabilities from the "generating entity" can be discovered by a "requesting entity" in section 6.2. To do this, the "requesting entity" sends a disco#info request (that MUST include a disco 'node' attribute for backwards-compatibility). The 'node' attribute value is generated in a way that results in an application-specific value that will be specific to the application that generated the string as well as the capabilities that are currently advertised by that application. What the XEP does not describe, is what is to happen when the requesting entity uses in their request a 'node' attribute value that is different from what the generating entity would produce (given its current configuration). Since providing the value, the generating entity could have undergone configuration changes making available a different set of capabilities, thus making the original value outdated. The XEP is improved by explicitly describing this scenario, by defining what should happen when a requesting entity uses a conflicting 'node' attribute value. I can think of a number of options: 1. If the 'node' attribute value sent by the requesting entity is recognized by the generating entity as a valid value in some context (eg: a value that represents an earlier state of offered capabilities), the generating entity could respond with the corresponding capabilities. Downsides: the requesting entity may take this as an indication that this represents the _current_ capabilities of the requesting entity, when that may not be the case. This approach can't be used if the generating entity does not recognize the value 2. The request could be answered with an error (eg: item-not-found). Downside: the requesting entity, that only performs this request because it's interested in the current capabilities of the generating entity, needs to do another round trip to get the answers it is looking for. 3. The request could be answered with a response in which the generating entity uses the new/up-to-date 'node' attribute value (it explicitly does not echo back the value that was in the request). Downside: there is a potential backwards compatibility issue for existing implementations that currently use another approach. They may end up mismatching 'node' attribute values and associated capabilities. Given the wording in section 6.2, specifically the definition that the requesting entity is to include the 'node' attribute for backwards compatibility, seems to suggest that the responding entity may not have a need for this value. That, to me, suggests that option 3 is most appropriate. I suggest that section 6.2 of XEP-0115 is modified to include an explicit description of option 3. The backwards-incompatibility issues are arguably existing only because of unspecified behavior. I do not see how such issues would be significantly affecting functionality. As the XEP is currently in state Stable, backwards incompatible changes are allowable. Thoughts? Kind regards, Guus

5 months, 2 weeks

1
0
0 0

mailing list move

by Peter Saint-Andre

We're in the midst of moving this email discussion list from one server to another. You might be asked to re-confirm your subscription. Peter

6 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

Standards May 2025