Why are the inlined bind2 features inside <feature/> elements rather than
using the exact same syntax as when announcing the same features in the stream
features element (e.g. <csi xmlns='urn:xmpp:csi:0'/>)
For reference:
<bind xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind:0'>
<inline>
<feature var="urn:xmpp:carbons:2" />
<feature var="urn:xmpp:csi:0" />
<feature var="urn:xmpp:sm:3" />
</inline>
</bind>
-tmolitor
Version 0.1.0 of XEP-0509 (Initial Authentication Pipelining) has been
released.
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.
Changelog:
Accepted as Experimental by council vote (dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0509.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.
Why is XEP-0386 (BIND2) talking about <authorization-identity/> at [1] whereas
XEP-0388 (SASL2) is talking about <authorization-identifier/> at [2]?
Bot specs use it for exactly the same thing: communicating the bare or full
jid (if a bind occured). Why this double-element? XEP-0388 even states
> If the Client is now authenticated, the Server sends a <success/> element,
which contains an <authorization-identifier/> element containing the negotiated
identity - this is a bare JID, unless resource binding has occurred, in which
case it is a full JID.
So it seems like a perfect fit to communicate the full jid after bind using the
SASL2 element, why was this extra BIND2 element added?
-tmolitor
[1] https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0386.html#identifiers
[2] https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0388.html#success
Greetings.
This is a concern about backward compatibility.
Preface
-------
Earlier, this evening, after I have sent a series of corrections to
messages at the group chat of XSF Discussion, Mr. Guus has mentioned
the concern of backward compatibility with clients that do not support
message corrections, or reactions and other features that have a visual
impact.
Wed 10 Dec 2025 06:21:44 PM - Guus:
> My client displays a wall of text in this chat room, full of quote
> chains, reactions, links, and corrections.
>
> It's completely unreadable. I'm using a very old client with a basic
> interface, but until recently, this was never an issue.
>
> It's disappointing to see that modern XMPP usage can make my
> experience so abysmal - at least in rooms where newer clients are
> active (even if _or perhaps because_ they try to implement "backwards
> compatibility" features).
Wed 10 Dec 2025 06:31:45 PM - lissine:
> Check https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-12-10 to have an idea about the
> experience of Guus
Concern
-------
I was wondering whether some features, which have visual impact on
messages, should have XML Namespaces (xmlns).
Consideration
-------------
This would mean that messages that are marked as "corrected messages"
will not be displayed with clients that do not support message
correction, due to a namespace which is not recognized by clients that
do not support that feature.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Version 1.35.3 of XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for multi-user
text chat, whereby multiple XMPP users can exchange messages in the
context of a room or channel, similar to Internet Relay Chat (IRC). In
addition to standard chatroom features such as room topics and
invitations, the protocol defines a strong room control model,
including the ability to kick and ban users, to name room moderators
and administrators, to require membership or passwords in order to
join the room, etc.
Changelog:
* muc#roomconfig_allowinvites doesn't restrict owners but enables
additional permissions for members. (spw)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.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.
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.
