February 2026 - 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

Scoping discussion: updating XMPP RFCs / XMPP 2.0
by Guus der Kinderen 29 Jun '26

29 Jun '26

Hi all, At the recent Summit, we had a long and nuanced discussion about the state of the XMPP RFCs and whether there is value in updating parts of them, potentially through the IETF, to better reflect how XMPP is actually implemented and used today. To be clear upfront: This is not a proposal to start an IETF working group, nor a commitment to produce new RFCs. The discussion at the Summit surfaced enough open questions that it seems worthwhile to first have a focused scoping and feasibility discussion. Some of the motivations that were raised: - The current RFCs do not describe a baseline that results in interoperable modern implementations - Discoverability for new implementers is difficult (knowing which XEPs are "essential") - The IM landscape has changed significantly since the original RFCs - External review and feedback could be valuable - There may be marketing and positioning benefits, but these are secondary At the same time, many concerns were raised: - The sheer amount of work required, and whether we realistically have the manpower - Risk of scope creep (e.g., baking too much into RFCs) - Loss of flexibility compared to the XEP process - Fear of starting something we cannot finish - Unclear interaction with compliance suites and the "living standard" nature of XMPP - Potential pushback or distraction from other IETF efforts (e.g., MIMI) Questions that seem worth discussing at this stage: - Is it useful to think about updating some RFCs (e.g., core, IM), while leaving the rest to XEPs? - What would be clearly in-scope vs out-of-scope? - Is there enough interest and capacity to justify exploring this further? - What would be a sensible first step that does not overcommit us? If you were at the Summit and felt strongly one way or the other, it would be great to hear your perspective here. If you weren't, fresh viewpoints are equally welcome. The goal of this thread is simply to assess whether this topic is worth pursuing further, and if so, in what very limited and realistic form. Kind regards, Guus

7 9

Proposal: Add <no-notify/> hint to XEP-0334 (Message Processing Hints)
by Laura G. 22 Jun '26

22 Jun '26

I'd like to propose adding a new processing hint to XEP-0334 to support silent/whisper messages - messages that are delivered normally but don't trigger notifications on the recipient's device. Use Case: My mother and I communicate via XMPP throughout the day. She frequently participates in screen recordings and video calls (about 1 hour daily) where notification sounds and popups would be disruptive. However, she doesn't want to use DND mode because she needs to remain reachable for genuine emergencies. The solution we need: the ability to send non-urgent messages silently so she can read them when she next checks her client, without interrupting her work. User Demand: This feature is heavily requested across messaging platforms. A quick search shows thousands of users asking "how to send silent messages" or "send without notification" for Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, and other platforms. Telegram already implements this as "send without sound." The demand is clear and widespread. Proposed Addition to XEP-0334: A <no-notify/> processing hint with the following semantics: <message to='recipient(a)example.com' type='chat'> <body>Please look at the following when you have time: ...</body> <no-notify xmlns='urn:xmpp:hints'/> </message> Behavior: - The receiving client SHOULD NOT trigger audio/visual notifications - The message SHOULD still be delivered and stored normally - The message SHOULD appear in the chat history - The message MAY still update unread counts (implementation-dependent) - Clients MAY provide UI indication that a message was sent silently Benefits: - Allows nuanced communication without forcing binary DND states - Respects recipient's focus/workflow while maintaining async communication - Reduces notification fatigue - Provides sender control over message urgency - Simple to implement - clients already have notification suppression logic Backwards Compatibility: Clients that don't recognize <no-notify/> will simply deliver the message normally, which is acceptable fallback behavior. This would be a natural extension to the existing hint types in XEP-0334 (no-store, no-copy, store, no-permanent-store) and addresses a genuine gap in XMPP's messaging capabilities. Thoughts? Is this something the community would support adding to XEP-0334, or would it be better suited as a separate XEP? Best regards, L.G. I'm using an email mask just because I don't want recruiters to get a view of my personal life, please consider the proposal objectively.

6 8

QUIC(ker)
by Dave Cridland 30 Apr '26

30 Apr '26

Hey all, Some of you have heard me talk about this at the Summit, but I'd like to revisit/reexamine our QUIC binding to improve performance of XMPP on low bandwidth. I'm not sure we'll get to this at the Summit, and there's not many who want to talk about it so I wondered if this summit topic could have been an email. (Except then we discussed it anyway) The primary concerns on low bandwidth - beyond sending fewer bytes on the wire - are round-trips and head-of-line blocking. I think XMPP has a good story on round-trips; we're down to very few during authentication and connection setup, and during normal messaging operation we don't worry about latency at all. Head-of-Line blocking, or HoL Blocking, is when - in our case - packet loss causes the stream to stall until the packet is retransmitted, which is at least a round-trip away - and can be more due to bandwidth-delay product. At the same time, we cannot eliminate this entirely (by, say, sending stanzas over UDP directly) because if we do that we lose the ordering. Out of order messages can be confusing, and lead to bad misunderstandings. The rules on this are in RFC 6120, and are rather more complicated than we normally worry about - normally, we just process everything on a strea, in order, and this does satisfy the rules. But the rules allow us to process stanzas in any order we like, as long as So, what I'm thinking is a way to use the additional channels in QUIC such that we open multiple channels on both C2S and S2S sessions, which would form part of the same virtual stream, and we can distribute messages such that we maintain ordering within messages where we need to, but allows us to out-of-order (and avoid HOL Blocking) messages sent between unrelated jids. This differs to the existing XEP, where each channel maps to a single XML Stream and XMPP session. Notes from the Summit: WEBTRANS would also be of interest, but "raw" QUIC has some advantages as well, so we probably want both with a uniform approach. So, my plan is to get an implementation together and a XEP. Anyone else interested? Dave.

6 18

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

NEW: XEP-0511 (Link Metadata)
by Daniel Gultsch 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0511 (Link Metadata) has been released. Abstract: This specification describes how to attach metadata for links to a message. Changelog: Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0511.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.

2 1

Proposed XMPP Extension: Link Metadata
by Daniel Gultsch 25 Feb '26

25 Feb '26

The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: Link Metadata Abstract: This specification describes how to attach metadata for links to a message. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/link-metadata.html The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.

5 5

XMPP Council Agenda 2026-02-24
by Daniel Gultsch 24 Feb '26

24 Feb '26

Good Morning Council Members, the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, February 24 2026 at 15:30 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join The Agenda is as follows: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda Bashing 3) Editors update • UPDATED: XEP-0353 (Jingle Message Initiation) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0353.html • NEW: XEP-0510 (End-to-End Encrypted Contacts Metadata) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0510.html 4) Items for voting none 5) Pending votes Goffi on Link Metadata https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/link-metadata.html See the spreadsheet of doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14gy_nhuTnqlktakJfLZ2Mc-jblSaG0na0Kh… 6) Date of Next 7) AOB 8) Close

1 0

NEW: XEP-0510 (End-to-End Encrypted Contacts Metadata)
by Daniel Gultsch 24 Feb '26

24 Feb '26

Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0510 (End-to-End Encrypted Contacts Metadata) has been released. Abstract: This specification describes how to encrypt contacts metadata to minimize server exposure. Changelog: Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0510.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

UPDATED: XEP-0353 (Jingle Message Initiation)
by Daniel Gultsch 24 Feb '26

24 Feb '26

Version 0.8.0 of XEP-0353 (Jingle Message Initiation) has been released. Abstract: This specification provides a way for the initiator of a Jingle session to propose sending an invitation in an XMPP message stanza, thus taking advantage of message delivery semantics instead of sending IQ stanzas to all of the responder's online resources or choosing a particular online resource. Changelog: Adapt usage of JID types to real-world usage: * Send JMI responses to full JID of initiator instead of bare JID * Send JMI <finish/> element to full JID of both parties (melvo) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0353.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