Hello!
XEP-0045 Section 9.1 defines that:
- a user cannot be banned by an admin with a lower affiliation.
- if an admin or owner attempts to ban himself, the service MUST deny the
request.
Section 9.2, that deals with modifying the ban list of a room (potentially
applying changes that affect more than one participant) does not mention
these cases. It stands to reason that similar definitions must apply.
To me, this raises the question of dealing with ban list modification
requests that contain both 'valid' as well as 'invalid' modifications. I do
not believe that the XEP clearly specifies how to deal with these. I would
think that the entire request is to be rejected (as opposed to only the
'valid' modifications' be applied). Can we add this explicitly in the XEP?
Kind regards,
Guus
Version 0.1.2 of XEP-0491 (WebXDC) has been released.
Abstract:
This document defines an XMPP protocol extension to communicate WebXDC
widgets and their state updates.
Changelog:
* Suggest what to use for selfAddr
* Add acknowledgements (spw)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0491.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 0.4.2 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:
* Add an XML schema.
* Mention that this specification does add a new namespace that should
go to the registrar.
* Fix indentation, typos, misuse of '' vs. </> for elements, etc.
(egp)
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.
Version 0.2.0 of XEP-0484 (Fast Authentication Streamlining Tokens)
has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines a token-based method to streamline
authentication in XMPP, allowing fully authenticated stream
establishment within a single round-trip.
Changelog:
* Added an XML Schema.
* Fixed text where 'count' was assumed to be an element, not an
attribute.
* Fixed indentation in a few examples. (egp)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0484.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 0.1.0 of XEP-0492 (Chat notification settings) has been
released.
Abstract:
This document defines an XMPP protocol extension to synchronise per-
chat notification settings across different clients.
Changelog:
* Promoted to Experimental (XEP Editor: dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0492.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 0.1.1 of XEP-0484 (Fast Authentication Streamlining Tokens)
has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines a token-based method to streamline
authentication in XMPP, allowing fully authenticated stream
establishment within a single round-trip.
Changelog:
* Link to latest draft version (09) of the HT SASL mechanism. (lnj)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0484.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 current contact implementation is lacking, which causes having lots of fragmentation and duplicates in contacts. Here are some scenarios:
* XEP proposal1: meta contacts. A single person John Doe has multiple accounts doe1(a)ex1.com, doe2(a)ex2.com, doe3(a)ex3.com ... It would make more sense to have an "extended contact" or a "meta contact" that combines all of these addresses.
* XEP proposal2: once meta contact is implemented, it would be desirable to have a field for a personal note. For example, this is available in Slack and Discord. In 2020 there was an XMPP sprint for "studying Discord and bringing its interesting features" (https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Sprints/2020_November_Online), and I think this is an interesting and useful feature.
* XEP proposal3: better contact integration. The contacts data on XMPP apps of Android is very isolated from the rest of apps. All other messaging apps interact well with the device contacts and phone numbers, except for XMPP because it doesn't use phone numbers as identifiers. But once we have XEP proposal2 and we can add personal notes, we can also add a field for phone numbers for contacts that would make it more interoperable with device contacts that are identified with phone numbers.
For these 3 proposals, I was moving point by point to explain the motive behind the next proposal which actually combines all of the three previous points.
* XEP proposal4: vCard compatible contacts. The vCard standards solves all three points since it 1) accepts multiple phone numbers and emails, 2) Include note, birthday, company and other miscellaneous fields, and 3) are supported natively by phone contacts. As of vCard v4, it has XML property which "is used if the vCard was encoded in XML (xCard standard) and the XML document contained elements which are not part of the xCard standard."
* XEP proposal5: once vCard standard is supported, it would be easy to have XMPP as a WebDav server. Android app like Conversation have access to all contact information and can easily sync contact information with phone contacts.
* XEP proposal6: It remains to clarify how XMPP clients deal with contacts that have no XMPP handle. Signal chose the position of not showing them in app at all. WhatApp prepares an SMS to invite them. This might be left to the client, but as a Slidge gateway user, it would be convenient to check phone numbers as a username handle for the current server. E.g: if a phone number is +18884440000, client would check the main gateway servers setup by users +18884440000(a)example.org, +18884440000(a)whatsapp.example.org, and +18884440000(a)telegram.example.org. If non of these exist, then the client can proceed with inviting them to XMPP.. As for the security, a simple disclaimer like: "XMPP found these gateway users but couldn't verify their ownership" should suffice.
* XEP proposal7: contact-related features might need revision like XEP-0140 (contact groups), as this is implemented in vCard too.
When using gateways that create many users (e.g: https://slidge.im), XMPP clients are spammed with subscription and invitation requests. It would be useful for users to set a policy that rejects any incoming request and only manually approve subscriptions and invitations.