- Standards

Atom Activity Streams and Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277 and XEP-0472)

by Schimon Jehudah

Good day. I have explored the "Atom Activity Streams" documents of Friendica. https://activitystrea.ms/specs/atom/1.0/ I have further added rendering capabilities to an RSS extension. https://greasyfork.org/scripts/465932-newspaper-syndication-feed-reader Proposal -------- Since Atom Activity Streams documents can be delivered as a single "atom:entry" element, as so with XMPP PubSub Node Items; then, it might be beneficial to mention "Atom Activity Streams" in the XEP specifications of Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277 and XEP-0472). Rational -------- Even though, as it seems, an Atom Activity Streams document is, as with Atom Over XMPP, a single "atom:entry" element, with a couple of XML namespaces, this would stimulate people to: * Utilize XMPP PubSub Node Items in an independent fashion, without compiling an Atom Syndication Format document; and * Consider interoperability with Friendica and other platforms that produce Atom Activity Streams documents, and also Json Activity Streams documents, which Nostr utilizes. * Consider interoperability of projects with XMPP. * Motivate projects, such as Friendica to extend support of XMPP. XML Namespace ------------- The namespaces that are utilized by Friendica, and may be relevant, are: xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:at="http://purl.org/atompub/tombstones/1.0" xmlns:activity="http://activitystrea.ms/spec/1.0/" xmlns:dfrn="http://purl.org/macgirvin/dfrn/1.0" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:media="http://purl.org/syndication/atommedia" xmlns:ostatus="http://ostatus.org/schema/1.0" xmlns:poco="http://portablecontacts.net/spec/1.0" xmlns:statusnet="http://status.net/schema/api/1/" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" Sample ------ Herein attached an Atom Activity Streams document. Source: https://my-place.social/display/feed-item/107999490.atom https://my-place.social/display/1c9fc4fa-f51b9f6f654d0bd7-7c3a0251 https://piaille.fr/@movim/115519544289510132 Kind regards, Schimon

6 months

2
5
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0060 (Publish-Subscribe)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 1.30.0 of XEP-0060 (Publish-Subscribe) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for generic publish-subscribe functionality. The protocol enables XMPP entities to create nodes (topics) at a pubsub service and publish information at those nodes; an event notification (with or without payload) is then broadcasted to all entities that have subscribed to the node. Pubsub therefore adheres to the classic Observer design pattern and can serve as the foundation for a wide variety of applications, including news feeds, content syndication, rich presence, geolocation, workflow systems, network management systems, and any other application that requires event notifications. Changelog: Describe the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub' disco#info feature. (gdk) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.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.

6 months

1
0
0 0

LAST CALL: XEP-0485 (PubSub Server Information)

by Daniel Gultsch

This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0485. 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/xep-0485.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2025-11-03. 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!

6 months

4
5
0 0

NEW: XEP-0507 (Jingle Content Category)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0507 (Jingle Content Category) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP extension to negotiate the use of Session Description Protocol (SDP) media- level attribute 'content' as defined by RFC 4796 with Jingle RTP sessions Changelog: Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0507.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.

6 months

1
0
0 0

Navigation instructions for Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277 and XEP-0472)

by Schimon Jehudah

Good day. About ===== I have recently suggested at project Movim to add navigational instructions to Atom entries (i.e. posts). I am still experimenting it, and it currently seems useful. Technicality ============ The idea is realized in a similar fashion to the classification of comments node with rel='replies' and title='comments'. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.xml#comments Navigation ========== I advise to enable navigational instructions with rel='navigation' and title='previous' and title='proceed', and perhaps also title='index'. At the bottom of this page there are proceed or previous links to navigate and are generated from the instructions proposed above. https://journal.woodpeckersnest.eu/posts/2024-11-05-xmpp-as-the-internet/ Advantages ========== Navigational instructions would conveniently facilitate the creation of a CMS even over a single PEP node, without a compulsory need of having a PubSub service with multiple nodes to do so, by relating from post to post from within each posts. Navigational instructions would also incentivise the creation of articles that are segmented into parts of a series of posts, and portability thereof. Kind regards, Schimon

6 months, 1 week

1
1
0 0

XEP-0440 No supported channel bindings

by Dave Cridland

Thilo, sorry! I had somehow missed that SASL2 mandates XEP-0440. It makes a lot of sense. But... Openfire currently doesn't support any channel bindings. It is sometimes used in cases where there is no TLS at all. This is quite deliberate and sensible in this case, please don't argue with this! This means there will always be cases where there are no channel bindings available (because there's no channel to bind to!). The schema doesn't include a minOccurs, and that means minOccurs='1' by default. This means at least one channel binding MUST be included. Is this intentional? I appreciate this is an oddball case (and I can support tls-server-endpoint for most normal cases), but is this the intent here or was the expectation that the minOccurs should be '0'? (I know tls-server-endpoint MUST be implemented, but MTI is not MTD etc). Dave.

6 months, 1 week

3
3
0 0

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 2025-10-28. 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!

6 months, 1 week

6
13
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0474 (SASL SCRAM Downgrade Protection)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.5.0 of XEP-0474 (SASL SCRAM Downgrade Protection) has been released. Abstract: This specification provides a way to secure the SASL and SASL2 handshakes against method and channel-binding downgrades. Changelog: * Add business rules describing client behavior * Make clear that PLAIN still has to be pinned away, if not disabled entirely (tm) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0474.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.

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0440 (SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.5 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: * Address a possible MITM attack vector by making the tls-server-end- point channel-binding mandatory to implement * Remove the whole 'Interaction with SASL mechanisms' section and replace it with 'Business Rules' * Rework whole 'Security Considerations' section * Some minor editorial changes * Add Thilo Molitor as author (tm) 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.

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

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!

6 months, 3 weeks

9
30
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

Standards