- Standards

UPDATED: XEP-0143 (Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols)
by Daniel Gultsch 06 Feb '26

06 Feb '26

Version 1.1.3 of XEP-0143 (Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols) has been released. Abstract: This document provides information intended to assist authors of XMPP Extension Protocols. Changelog: Reflect preference for GitHub pull requests for initial submission, PRs to contain only one changed XEP. (dwd) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0143.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.

1 0

UPDATED: XEP-0001 (XMPP Extension Protocols)
by Daniel Gultsch 06 Feb '26

06 Feb '26

Version 1.26.0 of XEP-0001 (XMPP Extension Protocols) has been released. Abstract: This document defines the standards process followed by the XMPP Standards Foundation. Changelog: * Surface (and correct) the source control information. * Surface the publication URL (although I assume anyone reading this has figured that one out by now). * Surface the contributor side of things. * Add bit about XEP authors making PRs if they don't exist - this is "new" rather than documenting existing practice. * Add bit about PRs getting XEP author approval (existing practice hithertofore undocumented). * Add bit about Council (etc) adding authors if they drop off (existing practice hithertofore undocumented). * Add note to clarify that Retraction doesn't mean Deletion (existing practice, documented, but has been misunderstood before). (dwd) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.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.

1 0

Presence problem in large MUC rooms.
by Goffi 06 Feb '26

06 Feb '26

Hi, Following what I've said yesterday at the summit, I would like to explain more my idea, and get your feedback. So basically the problem with presence in large MUC is that we get 2 things: - initial presence when we join the room - all the presence update when people join and leave, which is quite often with people on mobiles. So my point was that we are seeing MUC by the way it's used today. But we don't have to. We don't have to be actively in the room. What we want when we are in a large room, is to be able to check it when we want, and be notified when we are mentioned. For smaller rooms, we may want to be notified on each new message. The way I see it, we could have 2 ways to join a MUC: active and passive. The active join would be what we do today, we get all the presence, and updates, it's really bandwidth intensive. The passive join, on the other hand, would only say "we are in the room". The MUC service would then notify the client only in case of mention (or for any message in case of "subscribed" room). Benefit: - we don't have presence spam anymore, the client does an active join only when the user want to actually be in the room. So it's only one room at the time. - client doesn't have to actively parse message to look for mention, on mobile it will get a push notification and wake up only when necessary - It should be easy to implement on top on existing MUC implementation - It's backward compatible: non-compatible client will just to "active" join all the time, and get all the presence spam. Probably we can also optimize the initial presence in case of active join, but that's another topic. I think that solves the presence issue. Let me know what you think about it. Best, Goffi

6 12

Agenda for XSF Board Meeting on 5 February 2026
by Guus der Kinderen 04 Feb '26

04 Feb '26

Dear Board members, This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, 5 February 2026, from 17:00 to 17:30 UTC. The meeting will take place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join. Brief context is included for each agenda item to support preparation. *1. Welcome*Opening of the meeting. *2. Formalize Agenda*Confirm and approve the agenda for this meeting. *3. Review and vote on proposed changes to XEP-0001 and XEP-0143*The Board will review and vote on proposed changes to XEP-0001, which require Board approval. The Council has already approved the proposed changes to XEP-0143. This item is included to ensure process clarity and to determine whether the Board wishes to formally note or endorse those changes as well. *4. Summit and FOSDEM report and follow ups*A brief review of the recent Summit and our presence at FOSDEM. The purpose is to identify any concrete outcomes, learnings, or potential follow-up topics that may require future Board or membership attention. No decisions are expected under this item. *5. Increase Board meeting frequency*Discussion of a proposal to increase the frequency of Board meetings, with the aim of improving engagement, continuity, and overall productivity. *6. Any Other Business*Items not listed above that require brief attention. *7. Date of Next Meeting*Agreement on the date of the next Board meeting. *8. Close*Closing of the meeting. Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can use our time efficiently. Kind regards, Guus

1 0

Moderation
by Schimon Jehudah 26 Jan '26

26 Jan '26

Greetings. I advise to moderate people who have never posted to this mailing-list. It is bad enough that there is only a single official mailing-list; and Having issues with that single one will even worse. Please advise. Kindly, Schimon

2 2

Simultaneous
by kitana3310＠gmail.com 26 Jan '26

26 Jan '26

I am digital marketing expert

1 0

Participation of civil society in the standardization process + Last Calls
by Daniel Gultsch 16 Jan '26

16 Jan '26

Hi, I saw a talk by Sophia Longwe, who I believe works at Wikimedia Germany, at 39C3 (Chaos Communication Congress). I saw the talk in person, but there is a recording of it here: https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-who-runs-the-www-wsis20-and-the-future-of-inter… The talk is a rudimentary overview of how the different bodies that "steer" the internet work t ranging from UN committees and ICANN down to mere mortals such as us. The XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) was not called out specifically, but our colleagues at the IETF and W3C were mentioned. In her talk, she criticized the lack of participation from "civil society" in standardization work. She attributed this partially to high barriers to entry at IETF events (high costs, fancy hotels) and said (I’m paraphrasing) that it’s basically just rich FAANG employees. Some of that doesn’t exactly match my own experience at the IETF, but I don’t think any of what she said was in bad faith. I hope to meet her in Vienna (IETF126) to discuss some of these things in person. And who knows, maybe she is right. Anyway, long story short, this got me thinking about our processes here at the XSF (which, again, she didn’t mention at all): I think the XMPP Standards Foundation is in a unique position where many of our members can be described as "civil society" - people who might describe themselves as activists or promoters of XMPP rather than developers. (And/or people who do software development for a living, but whose jobs are unrelated to XMPP and who joined the XSF more in the capacity of a user.) At the same time, I’m observing that a lot of our Last Calls (and standards work in general) have few participants, at least relative to our overall membership numbers. Furthermore, I've heard criticism that the XSF doesn’t take the concerns of some minority groups seriously enough. (Which may or may not be true; I don’t want to take sides on that at this point.) This leads me to a question: Can we kill two or three birds with one stone here? Can we either rephrase some of the questions in the Last Call or add new ones that explicitly invite feedback from "civil society" (for lack of a better word)? I just want to get the discussion started, so I don’t have a final list, but the questions could go in a direction like this: * Would you use this feature if it were implemented in the XMPP client you currently use? * Do you think an implementation of this feature could negatively impact your community? * Does this improve (make easier) the work you do in your community? Cheers, Daniel

7 10

i1_m2ogwfahkc6bk@anonymous.cheogram.com
by joseperezguerrero730＠gmail.com 15 Jan '26

15 Jan '26

hello

2 2

UPDATED: XEP-0386 (Bind 2)
by Daniel Gultsch 15 Jan '26

15 Jan '26

Version 1.1.0 of XEP-0386 (Bind 2) has been released. Abstract: This specification provides a single-request replacement for several activities an XMPP client needs to do at startup. Changelog: It's authorization-identifier not authorization-identity (dg) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0386.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.

1 0

Means to handle spam
by Schimon Jehudah 30 Dec '25

30 Dec '25

Greetings to one and all. I would want to apologise for posting to this mailing-list, as mailing-lists "general" and "jdev" are closed. I am interested in discussing automated spam, and automated counter measures against that issue. I have created a moderation service (i.e. "bot") software to handle this concern. The interface of that software is of XMPP client, so anyone can operate it from anywhere. I would be glad to be honored by your kind participation. https://git.xmpp-it.net/sch/KaikOut Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Schimon

1 0