Good Morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, December 9
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
- STABLE: XEP-0440 (SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability)
- NEW: XEP-0508 (Forums)
4) Items for voting
none
5) Pending votes
Daniel and Dan on XEP-0045: clarify muc#roomconfig_allowinvites
Dan on Proposed XMPP Extension: Initial Authentication Pipelining and
Issue Last Call on XEP-0377: Spam Reporting
See the spreadsheet of doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14gy_nhuTnqlktakJfLZ2Mc-jblSaG0na0Kh…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0508 (Forums) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification describes how to implement XMPP-based discussion
forums.
Changelog:
Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0508.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.
Version 1.0.0 of XEP-0440 (SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability) has
been released.
Abstract:
This specification allows servers to annouce their supported SASL
channel-binding types to clients.
Changelog:
* Accept as Stable as per Council Vote from 2025-11-18 (XEP Editor
(dg))
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0440.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.
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Initial Authentication Pipelining
Abstract:
This specification defines a protocol for discovering if the SASL2
<authenticate> can be pipelined safely along with the stream open, and
if so allows the client to perform this pipelining safely.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/iap.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
Version 0.7.0 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:
* Remove local redefinition of jingle <reason/> element in XML schema
and reference existing.
* Make usage of <reason/> element optional in schema, as specified in
the text.
* Add missing definition of 'empty' type in XML schema. (lnj)
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.
Hi everybody,
On ActivityPub (AP) there is currently a thread discussing polls:
https://mastodon.social/@Lautaro_Ferrero/115625081357268012
(it switches to English after few messages), and I think that it's good to
bring that to standard@ to discuss that mater.
We can probably all agree that a poll specification would be a good addition to
XMPP, but it's not as trivial as it may first appear to do it well. In my
opinion we have the following requirements:
- Must work in group chat, notably in MUC including anonymous room and with
e2e encryption
- Must be flexible enough to enable gateways to poll on other protocols. I
notably intend to make a compatibility layer with ActivityPub in the gateway
I'm working on
- Must be used for many use cases, from voting for lunch location, selecting a
date for an event, to various opinion polls (or to vote on XMPP membership ;)
)
- Must support constraints: one vote per JID, vote on single or multi items,
vote public or hidden, result showed in real-time or only after the end of the
poll, etc.
I've been thinking about polls for a while, and my idea was to use a
combination of data form with XEP-0346 (Form Discovery and Publishing) for
public polls and ad-hoc service for complicated constraints.
On AP, Larma raise the very valid concern that we can't use IQ with anonymous
MUC, which exclude ad-hoc or pubsub. He suggested a direct message approach.
We probably need an hybrid approach, with 2 to 3 variant:
- direct message approach, necessary for anonymous MUC
- pubsub based one, probably using XEP-0346, having a service has many
advantages, and pubsub is already present in most servers.
- maybe an ad-hoc approach for complex use cases, something based on XEP-0050
(Ad-Hoc Commands) seems adapted.
John Livingston has already work on this on Prosody for Peertube, using a
dedicated <x-poll> element, you can check it at:
https://livingston.frama.io/peertube-plugin-livechat/technical/polls/
index.html
I'm volunteering to write a protoXEP for that, with John Livingston if he's OK
with that, and anybody else interested.
I'm looking forward for your though on the mater. This can also be discussed
at the summit next month.
Best,
Goffi
Hello everyone,
XEP-0045 is very quiet about how some of the options are to be interpreted.
For muc#roomconfig_allowinvites there is only one normative line in the XEP,
in the registry submission, which is "Whether to Allow Occupants to Invite
Others"
Now, it seems that ejabberd and Conversations have interpreted this to mean
"whether to allow occupants *who wouldn't normally be able to invite
otherwise* to invite other" which is to say, pretty much, in a members only
room can members invite members. On means members invite members, off means
only admin can (actually Conversations checks for moderator role not for
admin...)
This feels like the correct implementation to me given that you can't
meaningfully restrict invitations to a pubilc MUC (you could block mediated
invitations but we're moving away from those and they don't do anything
special in a public MUC traditionally) and it seems like nonsense to ban
admins from inviting members (since the admins can change this settings
anyway?)
Why it matters: currently Prosody does not implement this option at all,
because it seemed from the descriptio to mean something nonsensical. So
Prosody has (AFAICT) implemented the same thing as ejabberd and
Conversations, but under a custom name to make it clear how it works.
My proposal: change the one line of text in the XEP to instead read "Whether
to Allow Members to Invite Others".
Hello,
I've sketched out a proposal to either allow, or improve (depending on how
you think of it) the initiating entity's ability to pipeline authentication
(as in, send it without having waited for stream features it's seen before).
XEP-0484 (FAST) implies very strongly that this is possible anyway - and of
course it is - but in its current form clients have to take it on faith
that the stream features are unlikely to change. This has ramifications in
how quickly clients are likely to take advantage of new features or new
SASL mechanisms.
As an example, a client which already supports channel bindings, and is
using FAST with a pre-existing token, will not see the features of a server
newly enabling channel binding until after the authentications has
succeeded, thus "missing out" on switching to the better security.
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1483 is, I think, the obvious way of
tightening this up. This is a relatively minor problem, but I think this is
a relatively lightweight solution.
Comments are, of course, welcome.
Dave.
Hi all!
With XEP-0469: Bookmark Pinning and XEP-0492: Chat notification settings we now
have two XEPs that allow syncing pinning and notification settings across
clients on the same account using the <extensions/> element of XEP-0402: PEP
Native Bookmarks.
Unfortunately, this now means that normal 1:1 chats (that are synchronized as
roster items) lag behind.
I'm volunteering to write a XEP adding an <extensions/> element alongside the
<group/> element to allow arbitrary extensions for roster items. This would
bring 1:1 roster items on-par with bookmarks2 and immediately allow XEP-0492
and XEP-0469 to be applied to roster items as well.
But before I start I want to ask especially the server developers on this
list: would you consider implementing this?
If the answer is no or "some day far far in the future", it might be worth to
try to invent some other mechanism that could be deployed faster.
In my opinion, however, extending the roster items is by far the most elegant
and simplest solution.
What do you think?
-tmolitor
