Hi all!
MUST a pubsub service advertise <feature var='
http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'/> with service discovery 'info'
responses?
XEP-0060 shows this being done in examples 8 and 18, but there is no
normative text that defines this.
The feature is not listed in its "Feature Summary" section, and is not
registered with the Registrar.
There has been a discussion around this in the XSF's Discussion chat room
today (logs here:
https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-10-03#2025-10-03-f173fd843da7c3ee ).
There are implementations in the wild that require that feature to be
advertised, while other software doesn't advertise it.
Given the conflicting implementations, I believe that it would be good to
have normative text be added to XEP-0060 to clarify things. I'm not sure
yet what that text should be.
What do you think?
Kind regards,
Guus
Hi, I have a question about the handling of payload types in XEP-0167. The spec says that "The session-accept message SHOULD include a subset of the payload types sent by the initiator". When are two payload types considered equal? This is not obvious to me because there are optional attributes as well as parameters. I would think that definitely name, clockrate, and id need to match, but I'm not sure about the other attributes and the parameter
values. I think a precise answer to this is needed to determine whether one list of payload types is a subset of another, and therefore whether a given session-accept meets this part of the specification.
Here is an example from a call between two XMPP clients, Dino and Monal
The session-initiate message sent by Dino includes this list of payload types:
<payload-type id='111' channels='2' clockrate='48000' name='opus'>
<parameter name='useinbandfec' value='1' />
</payload-type>
<payload-type id='112' clockrate='32000' name='speex' />
<payload-type id='113' clockrate='16000' name='speex' />
<payload-type id='114' clockrate='8000' name='speex' />
<payload-type id='9' clockrate='8000' name='G722' />
<payload-type id='0' clockrate='8000' name='PCMU' />
<payload-type id='8' clockrate='8000' name='PCMA' />
And the session-accept message sent by Monal includes this list of payload-types:
<payload-type clockrate='8000' name='PCMU' id='0' />
<payload-type channels='2' id='111' clockrate='48000' name='opus'>
<parameter name='profile_level_id' value='4325392' />
<parameter name='useinbandfec' value='true' />
<parameter name='minptime' value='10' />
</payload-type>
<payload-type clockrate='8000' name='G722' id='9' />
<payload-type clockrate='8000' name='PCMA' id='8' />
This currently causes a problem in Dino because one of the responder's payload types (opus) is judged to not be present in the list of sent payload types, because it is not (strictly speaking) equal to any of the sent payload types, because it has a different number of parameters.
In this example, is the responder violating the spec by including extra parameters for the opus payload type, or is the initiator being too strict when comparing the payload types for equality?
Thanks, Jacques
Good evening.
I am developing a journal publishing system with XMPP support.
I am experimenting with the commenting system of XEP-0277, and,
according to Movim, it seems that I fail to create nodes with
appropriate properties.
I suppose that I fail, because Movim indicates that comments are closed
for posts that I publish.
I would be glad for any help.
Thank you.
Schimon
Hi,
There are multiple filetransfer XEPs like e.g. XEP-0385 / XEP-0447 / XEP-0396
They define a hash element, but its not clear to me if the hash is after encryption or before, if the file should be transferred encrypted.
If it is after encryption, the hash can only be used in edge cases for caching purposes (look up if we have this file already) because encryption keys change with each file transfer hence the hash of the encrypted file would change.
Regards
Philipp
Hello!
Section 5.2 of XEP-0060 'Publish-Subscribe' describes how disco#items is
used to discover nodes. Most of that section describes node discovery in
node hierarchies and collection nodes.
In version 1.12 of XEP-0060 text about collections was moved to XEP-0248
'PubSub Collection Nodes'. This specification contains a smaller paragraph
on node discovery (which is also numbered 5.2).
I would like to see the complexity of XEP-0060 be reduced. I believe that
most, if not all of its section 5.2 should be moved to XEP-0248 and removed
from XEP-0060.
The suggested change should not affect backwards compatibility, as it
doesn't result in a change of behavior: as far as I can see, the text only
applies to hierarchies and collection nodes. The change therefore is
permissible even considering XEP-0060 is Stable.
Is there any objection to this? What would relevant Node Discovery content
for XEP-0060 be (other than a reference to XEP-0248)?
Kind regards,
Guus
Good Morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, September
30 2025 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-0317 (Hats)
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0317.html
· Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Bookmark
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
4) Items for voting
a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Bookmark
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
b) XEP-0045: Fix 'roomsecret' field inconsistency
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1464
5) Pending votes
Dan on:
XEP-0060 / XEP-0248: Improve separation of 'collections'
XEP-0060 & XEP-0248: Default node-type specific configuration
XEP-0070: extend security section
Issue Last Call on 'XEP-0440: SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability'
Daniel and Marvin on:
XEP-0060 / XEP-0248: Improve separation of 'collections'
XEP-0060 & XEP-0248: Default node-type specific configuration
See the spreadsheet of doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAHUqBdlkobDcmfQ-YRMfZHGQLMWEdOFuEU…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
Hi all,
The 'roomconfig_roomsecret' data form field definition is not consistent.
In XEP-0045, examples 157 and 165 use 'text-private'. The registry
submission in paragraph 16.5.3 uses 'text-single'.
The registry itself (https://xmpp.org/registrar/formtypes.html) uses
'text-private'.
To me, this seems to boil down to a mistake in paragraph 16.5.3, which
should be corrected to 'text-private'. Given that the XEP is Stable, can we
bluntly do that?
Kind regards,
Guus
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Pubsub Node Bookmark
Abstract:
This specification defines a bookmark element pointing to a Pubsub
node
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
Version 0.3.1 of XEP-0317 (Hats) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines a more extensible model for roles and
affiliations in Multi-User Chat rooms.
Changelog:
Typos, completed some examples and paragraph clarifications thanks to
badlop feedback. (tj)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0317.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.
