Good day!
I want to create a weather bot which is not a component.
However, I would not be able to make a dynamic use of contact photo, as
I would with a component.
Because, it is not possible to selectively transmit contact photo.
I think, that this would have useful uses to different use-cases, so it
would be good to create an XEP to it.
Please advise,
Schimon
Version 0.3.0 of XEP-0455 (Service Outage Status) has been released.
Abstract:
This document defines an XMPP protocol extension that enables server
administrators to communicate issues with the server to all users in a
semantic manner.
Changelog:
Remove all in-band event signaling. (mp)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0455.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 0.4.0 of XEP-0377 (Spam Reporting) has been released.
Abstract:
This document specifies a mechanism by which users can report spam and
other abuse to a server operator or other spam service.
Changelog:
* Add spam report processing opt-in.
* Add Guus der Kinderen as co-author. (gdk)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0377.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 everyone!
I've been trying to design a "verify with one-time code during
registration" flow using XEP-0389 (Extensible In-Band Registration).
Specifically, this is for registration on the server itself (not on an
external component) and I'm using the jabber:x:data challenge.
However, I realised there's no standard way for the client to know what
its username and password is once the registration is complete. The old
IBR spec (XEP-0077) uses special <username/> and <password/> fields
which the client can automatically save to avoid the user having to
re-enter it.
Since "username, password, and some additional verification step" sounds
like a common use-case for IBR, should this be added to the spec in some
way?
Some options:
1. Extend the jabber:x:data challenge to say something like: servers
MUST NOT use var='username' and var='password' for anything other than
username and password, and clients MAY save those values locally if
present to avoid forcing the user to re-enter them.
2. Alternatively, extend the jabber:x:data challenge to say it can
optionally include <username/> and/or <password/> tags as siblings to
the <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='form'> form itself.
3. Same as (2), but with a new challenge type to keep things simple for
those who actually want just an ordinary Data Form.
4. Define a new challenge type something like jabber:iq:register
consisting of only <username/> and <password/> fields from 0077 (not
sure what to do about <email/>, but I don't see a need for it). This is
different from just using 0077 directly because the server can issue
this challenge as part of a flow *along with* other challenges like
jabber:x:data or jabber:x:oob. The disadvantage is the server would have
to issue an extra challenge (once for the username/password, and again
for the email address or whatever other data it wants like phone number)
rather than combining them in one form/challenge. However, this approach
is arguably cleaner as it doesn't mix different kinds of things (data
forms and specific standardised fields) together.
Let me know what you think of the above. I hope I didn't miss something
entirely! If there are existing implementations of XEP-0389, it would be
helpful to see, although I don't find any on the XMPP software list.
Best,
Badri
Greetings.
Suppose that I want to access to data over PubSub which is encrypted
with OpenPGP.
I then would have the GPG key in order to access to that data.
Should the key be also stored over a PubSub node and then be
synchronized to resources that request it?
What would be a good practice to do it?
My use-case is of an annotation system which is based on Atom Over XMPP.
Reference: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31900
Regards,
Schimon
Version 1.0.1 of XEP-0421 (Occupant identifiers for semi-anonymous
MUCs) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines a method that allows clients to identify a
MUC participant across reconnects and renames. It thus prevents
impersonification of semi-anonymous users.
Changelog:
Fixed typo (XEP Editor (dg))
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0421.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 1.1.3 of XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) has been
released.
Abstract:
This document defines a protocol to query and control an archive of
messages stored on a server.
Changelog:
Fixed typo (XEP Editor (dg))
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.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.
Greetings.
I would want to propose to replace the word "social" by another word.
The reason for this, is because "social" would imply of theme "social
network", even though this is not only for that theme.
This means, that some developers would be reluctant to add support for
XEP-0472 because they would be of the opinion that their software is
not intended for social network theme.
In order to avoid that misunderstanding, I suggest to rename the title.
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Schimon.
P.S.
Mr. Webber, has proposed to name Atom Over XMPP (i.e. XEP-0277 and
XEP-0472) as "Feeds" in the graphical interface of Cheogram.
In addition, Arne of monocles chat, JC Brand and Nicolas (nioc) are
alos in favour of adding support for Atom Over XMPP to their software.
I maintain a list of projects of which I petition for Atom Over XMPP.
gemini://woodpeckersnest.space/~schapps/journal/2024-05-30-publishing-over-xmpp.gmi
Hi!
While adding tests for XEP-0133: Service Administration to the XMPP Interop
Testing project, we ran into trouble. Specifically, it is unclear to me how
an ad-hoc command failure is to be represented.
Two XEPs are relevant:
- XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands
- XEP-0133: Service Administration
I don't think either is exactly clear in the definition of non-success
scenarios.
XEP-0050 Section 3.6 "Commands Successful/Failed" defines:
> The status of command execution signals only if the command is executing,
> has been completed, or been canceled. If completed, the "status" attribute
> does not specify if it completed successfully or not. If a command
> completes but fails, the responder MUST include at least one <note
> type='error'/> with the <command status='completed'/> it returns.
I do not believe that XEP-0050 specifies what the IQ type is (result or
error) when a command execution is completed with a failure.
XEP-0050 Section 4.4 "Possible Errors" defines command execution errors.
All of the descriptions listed relate to conditions where the responding
entity is prevented from starting to execute the command: it doesn't
understand the action, the requesting entity doesn't have permissions to
execute the command, and so on.
In example 23, it is shown that these type of errors are used in an IQ
type=error.
XEP-0133 is less clear. Where errors are referenced in the descriptions of
each command ("Unless an error occurs ...") they also seem to refer to
scenario's where a command execution cannot start. To me, that's in line
with XEP-0050. However, section 5 "Error Handling" specifies conditions
that seem to are detected both _before_ but also _after_ execution of the
command has started. Examples of that latter are:
- <conflict/> The command cannot be completed because of a data or
system conflict (e.g., a user already exists with that username).
- No entity is allowed to perform the command (e.g., retrieve the CEO's
roster).
To me, these two are examples of what should be responded to with a
<command status='completed'><note type='error'/></command>.
The XEP(s) would benefit from having more explicit definitions with regards
to these cases.
Firstly, lets specify explicitly in XEP-0050 if a command of which the
execution completed with an error is to be represented by an IQ stanza of
type 'result' or 'error'. The XEP to me suggests 'result', but I don't
think this is sufficiently clear from the text. For what it's worth, the
implementations that I've seen (Openfire, Smack and Prosody), seem to use
'result'.
Secondly, Section 5 of XEP-0133 arguably contradicts XEP-0050 - or at least
adds confusion more than clarification. What added value does this section
have over the error handling that is specified in XEP-0050? Perhaps
referring to XEP-0133 is a good alternative to the existence of Section 5
in XEP-0133.
Thirdly, the XEPs should have an example of a command that is
completed-with-failure. The illustrative power of that would be very
welcome.
I would value your feedback on this.
Kind regards,
Guus
