- Standards

RFC 6121 section 8.5 "active resource" and "Connected Resource"

by Guus der Kinderen

Hi, Section 8.5.4 provides a summary of earlier sections. It uses the term "active resource" twice. This term is not used in any of the earlier sections. Conversely, the earlier sections use the term "Connected Resource" a couple of times. A "Connected Resource" is defined by RFC6121/6120 as "[has] bound a resource to the stream" Although the term "Connected Resource" is used in section 8.5, none of the specifications therein seem to apply to Connected Resources. The usage of the term "active resource" in section 8.5.4 could be an artifact of RFC3921/3920, which defines an "active resource" as: "Upon establishing a session, a connected resource (in the terminology of [XMPP-CORE]) is said to be an "active resource." Although section 8.5 advertises that it will define how stanzas related to connected resources are to be processed ("If there is at least one available resource or connected resource, how the stanza is processed depends on the stanza type.") it does not seem to do that. All definitions seem to depend on having at least one available resource (which is defined as a connected resource that has sent initial presence), leaving scenarios in which only connected resources are present, undefined. Am I misinterpreting this? If not, is this something that should be cleared up (or explicitly be left undefined)? As a practical example of a question that I believe is left unanswered: How should a server process a message stanza of type 'normal', addressed to a bare JID that represents a local user (the scenario of section 8.5.2.1.1 of RFC 6121) if the corresponding user only has one or more Connected Resources (but not any Available Resources)? I believe that there are many possible variations on this question, I'm limiting it to one to illustrate the larger issue that I described in this email. For additional context: this was discussed in the XSF's Discussion MUC earlier. Logs of that conversation can be found at https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-28#2025-05-28-a5d887bd6428222c Kind regards, Guus

1 year

5
5
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0498 (Pubsub File Sharing)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.1.1 of XEP-0498 (Pubsub File Sharing) has been released. Abstract: This specification explains how to share files and optionally include directory structures similar to filesystems over XMPP Pubsub. It leverages XMPP Pubsub to enable notifications about file changes and manage permissions, providing users with real-time updates and control mechanisms. An optional mechanism is also specified for managing uploaded files. Changelog: Fix wrong shortname and add tags. (jp) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0498.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 year

1
0
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0485 (PubSub Server Information)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.1.1 of XEP-0485 (PubSub Server Information) has been released. Abstract: This document defines a data format whereby basic information of an XMPP domain can be expressed and exposed over pub-sub. Changelog: * Fixed references to XEP identifier. (gdk) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0485.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 year

1
0
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0388 (Extensible SASL Profile)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 1.0.3 of XEP-0388 (Extensible SASL Profile) has been released. Abstract: This document describes a replacement for the SASL profile documented in RFC 6120 which allows for greater extensibility. Changelog: * Add missing minOccurs='0' to additional-data in <continue/> in XML schema. (lnj) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0388.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 year

1
0
0 0

UPDATED: XEP-0384 (OMEMO Encryption)

by Daniel Gultsch

Version 0.9.0 of XEP-0384 (OMEMO Encryption) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines a protocol for end-to-end encryption in one-to-one chats, as well as group chats where each participant may have multiple clients per account. Changelog: Device labels must be signed Allow empty device list in XML schema Reworded security consideration that could be interpreted as forbidding trust mechanisms like BTBV/TOFU Added section about dealing with lack of presence subscription Removed reference to omemo-session-healing (th) URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0384.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 year

1
0
0 0

Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Server Information

by kevin.smith＠isode.com

The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. 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/inbox/pubsub-server-info.html The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP.

1 year, 1 month

3
3
0 0

We need more mailing-lists

by Schimon Jehudah

Good day. Please create "development" (or "jdev") and "general" (or "talk") mailing-lists. I sense that these are required. DEVELOPMENT ----------- I have many questions about XMPP development and concerns that are indirectly related to XMPP. I urgently need to have a mailing-list for development, as most of my questions aer not directly related to standard. GENERAL ------- A general mailing-list be useful to converse of any other concern, including welcoming people who have interest in XMPP, of any sort. Kind regards, Schimon

1 year, 1 month

2
2
0 0

Advise for HTTP framework

by Schimon Jehudah

Good evening. I intend to create a ptivate publishing system (i.e. journal) which is based upon Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277 and XEP-0472), and which would interact with Libervia and Movim. I usually utilize FastAPI, yet I would want to know of other possible frameworks which you think that might be more preferable for that task. Reference: https://git.xmpp-it.net/sch/Rivista Kind regards, Schimon.

1 year, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Moderating PubSub

by Schimon Jehudah

Good day, to one and all. I am considering to utilize a PubSub service as a public discussion board; and, as a public discussion board, it should be free for all. I was wondering whether an approval or other type of moderation mechanism is specified for PubSub. Kind regards, Schimon

1 year, 1 month

5
9
0 0

XEP-0115: Mismatched 'node' attribute value when detecting capabilities

by Guus der Kinderen

Hi all, This follows a discussion the XSF's Standards Discussion MUC. Logs start at https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-18 (and continue into the next days). XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities describes how capabilities from the "generating entity" can be discovered by a "requesting entity" in section 6.2. To do this, the "requesting entity" sends a disco#info request (that MUST include a disco 'node' attribute for backwards-compatibility). The 'node' attribute value is generated in a way that results in an application-specific value that will be specific to the application that generated the string as well as the capabilities that are currently advertised by that application. What the XEP does not describe, is what is to happen when the requesting entity uses in their request a 'node' attribute value that is different from what the generating entity would produce (given its current configuration). Since providing the value, the generating entity could have undergone configuration changes making available a different set of capabilities, thus making the original value outdated. The XEP is improved by explicitly describing this scenario, by defining what should happen when a requesting entity uses a conflicting 'node' attribute value. I can think of a number of options: 1. If the 'node' attribute value sent by the requesting entity is recognized by the generating entity as a valid value in some context (eg: a value that represents an earlier state of offered capabilities), the generating entity could respond with the corresponding capabilities. Downsides: the requesting entity may take this as an indication that this represents the _current_ capabilities of the requesting entity, when that may not be the case. This approach can't be used if the generating entity does not recognize the value 2. The request could be answered with an error (eg: item-not-found). Downside: the requesting entity, that only performs this request because it's interested in the current capabilities of the generating entity, needs to do another round trip to get the answers it is looking for. 3. The request could be answered with a response in which the generating entity uses the new/up-to-date 'node' attribute value (it explicitly does not echo back the value that was in the request). Downside: there is a potential backwards compatibility issue for existing implementations that currently use another approach. They may end up mismatching 'node' attribute values and associated capabilities. Given the wording in section 6.2, specifically the definition that the requesting entity is to include the 'node' attribute for backwards compatibility, seems to suggest that the responding entity may not have a need for this value. That, to me, suggests that option 3 is most appropriate. I suggest that section 6.2 of XEP-0115 is modified to include an explicit description of option 3. The backwards-incompatibility issues are arguably existing only because of unspecified behavior. I do not see how such issues would be significantly affecting functionality. As the XEP is currently in state Stable, backwards incompatible changes are allowable. Thoughts? Kind regards, Guus

1 year, 1 month

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

Standards